Noor Sk. Bhikan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

1 The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 16th August, 2001 passed by the High Court of

Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, declining the

reliefs prayed for by the appellant, however, still issuing

certain directions. The appellant had approached the High

Court with the averment that his property, i.e. a house at

Pimpalwadi, Taluka Paithan and agricultural land in Survey

No. 170 was acquired for Jaikwadi Project and he thus became

a project affected person. The concerned authorities had

issued a certificate dated 3rd August, 1982 to him in this

regard. After issuance of the notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, a declaration under Section 6 of the

2

Act was published on 16th January, 1975 and the award was

made on 16th July, 1979. Pursuant to the certificate issued in

favour of the appellant, he was allotted 1.61 hectares of land

from two different survey nos., namely, 78/2 (81 are) and

182/2 (81 are) as per the order dated 23rd August, 1982.

Possession of this land was handed over to him. The appellant

deposited the occupancy price and even the mutation was

effected in his name. However, in the meanwhile, the

respondent no.5, namely Sow. Shantabai Ramesh Savele filed

a regular suit in the Civil Court for a declaration in relation to

the land in question. This suit was dismissed by the trial

court and so was the appeal against the said judgment and

3

decree dated 25th October, 1985. During the pendency of the

appeal before the High Court, the said respondent filed

another suit in the Court at Ambad with an application for

injunction, which was also dismissed. While approaching the

Collector, the landlady namely, Sow. Shantabai Ramesh

Savele respondent no.5 submitted an application pointing out

that the land which was handed over to the appellant herein

on 25th August, 1982 was in fact survey no. 78/1 and not from

survey no.78/2. That land was not even the subject matter of

the acquisition which culminated into the Award dated 16th

July, 1979. The Collector, therefore, directed an enquiry and

based on the said enquiry report, passed an order dated 28th

4

February, 1986 directing the Tehsildar, Ambad to take

suitable action so as to put the original owner in possession of

the subject agricultural land. The Tehsildar issued a notice

for handing over the possession and for taking proceedings in

furtherance thereto. The Collector subsequently verified the

representation made by the landlady and found that while

handing over possession of 81 ares of land purportedly out of

survey no. 78/2, the Circle Inspector had committed an error

in marking the boundaries and possession of wrong

agricultural land was handed over to the appellant on 23rd

August, 1982. The Collector being satisfied about the mistake

committed by the Circle Inspector, by his order dated 28th

5

September, 1987 ordered that the area allotted to the

appellant as per the original order dated 23rd August, 1982

needed a change. The Tehsildar, in furtherance thereto,

issued an order to the Circle Inspector on 5th October, 1987 to

take corrective steps. The appellant herein approached the

High Court challenging the notices and he averred that

remained in possession of the land and even an interim order

was passed in his favour in the said petition.

Before the High Court, the stand of the respondents was

that at the time of handing over the possession to the

appellant, a mistake was committed by the Circle Inspector

and he did not mark the boundaries properly which called for

6

the corrective proceedings and this mistake was pointed out

by the Collector on 6th February, 1986 on an application by

respondent no.5. However, the appellant in the rejoinder

maintained his averments and the High Court while rejecting

the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant also rejected

the arguments in equity that the appellant had acted as per

the allotment order and he has been put in possession of the

land in question by the Revenue authorities and now his

position could not be altered and he could not be deprived of

the agricultural land on which he has invested a good amount

of funds for developing the same. Finally, the Court noticed

that the appellant was put into possession of the land and he

7

had enjoyed the fruits thereof. Thus, the plea of investment

would not enhance the value of the submissions made on

behalf of the appellant inasmuch as he could not continue to

claim possession of the land which was not the subject matter

of the acquisition itself. The claim of the appellant had not

been accepted by the Court but still it gave alternative relief to

the appellant. It will be appropriate for us to refer to the

relevant paragraphs of the judgment finally disposing of the

writ petition:

"In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Interim order is vacated. We direct the

respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to take appropriate

steps to allot the alternative land in Survey No.

8

23/1 of village mahakala in Ambad taluka to

the petitioner. However, before the petitioner

is put in possession of the alternative land, he

shall hand over vacant and peaceful

possession of the subject land, except the land

on which Madarsa/Mosque is located. The

respondent No.5 has agreed before us that she

shall not in any manner cause any

disturbance to the Madarsa/Mosque and this

undertaking would be binding on her

successors as well.

We clarify that the allotment order and

possession of the alternative land would be

done first in favour of the petitioner and he

shall submit of two weeks from today, to the

effect that he shall hand over the possession of

the subject land i.e. land in Survey Nos. 78/1

to the respondent no.5 as soon as the standing

sugar cane crop is harvested or in any case

before 31.12,2001 whichever is earlier.

9

In view of the fact that the respondent

No.5 has received compensation almost 20

years ago, we do not find any case to grant any

other compensation for the part of the land on

which Madarsa/Mosque is located and the

boundaries of this land will be demarcated by

Talathi of Ambad within the period of two

weeks from today and in presence of the

petitioner, respondent No.5 and the Member of

the Village Panchayat concerned.

At this stage, Sh. Kadar, learned counsel

for the petitioner prayed for compensation for

construction of house and irrigation facilities

etc. We are not inclined to consider the same

and it would be appropriate that the State

government decides this issue in keeping with

the policy that may be in vogue as at present.

We are also satisfied that this is a fit case

where an enquiry is required to be directed.

We accordingly direct the Collector, Jalna to

10

conduct an enquiry as to how the petitioner

came to be allotted the land which was not

subject matter of the acquisition proceedings

and fix the responsibility on the officer/s

concerned. Needless to mention, the collector

shall proceed against such officer/s who are

found guilty in the enquiry findings, as per the

provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. We also clarify

that our order will not come in the way of the

collector to enquire into the issue of allotment

of excess land to the petitioner and his family

members pursuant to the project affected

certificate dated 3.8.1982 and take appropriate

steps as may be permissible in law.

Rule discharged with no orders as to

costs."

11

It appears that during the pendency of the present

appeal, respondent no.5, died on 12th December, 2003. An

application being IA No. 1/2004, was filed for bringing the

legal representatives of the deceased-respondent no.5 on

record. IA No. 2/2004 was also filed for condonation of delay

in filing the application for substitution of the legal

representatives of the said deceased-respondent no.5. No

reply has been filed till date and in any case, there is no

opposition to these applications before us. Consequently, both

these applications are allowed, subject to just exceptions. The

delay in filing the application for substitution of the legal

representatives is condoned and the representatives of the

12

deceased-respondent no.5 as stated in paragraph 3 of the

application are permitted to be brought on record. Liberty to

file amended memo of parties is granted.

Another application was also filed being IA No. 4/2004

for placing on record a copy of the judgment passed by the

Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jalna in RCS No.

332/2001 entitled Rambhau S/o Narayan Rokde v. State of

Maharashtra and Anr. All that has been averred in this

application is that the said suit has been decided by the Court

on 16th April, 2002 and has a bearing on the issues involved in

the present matter. Nothing has been averred as to how this

judgment has any bearing on any of the issues involved in the

13

present case as none of the parties to the present appeal are

parties to that suit, except the State. It is in no way clear that

the subject matter of that suit is the subject matter of the

present appeal. In any case, the judgment was pronounced on

16th April, 2002 while the present application appears to have

been filed in 2008. No steps were taken to bring this

judgment on record of this Court for all that period. The

counsel appearing for the applicant has not been able to show

us the relevancy of that document to the present case. In fact,

even in the application there is no averment as to the

relevancy and necessity of the document to be brought on

record by way of additional evidence in the present case and

14

for it to be read in evidence. Thus, we do not consider it

appropriate and in the interest of justice to allow this

application. Consequently, the same is dismissed. However,

we make it clear that the parties concerned will be at liberty to

take steps against that judgment and decree as may be

permissible to them in accordance with law.

Reverting back to the merits of the present case, the High

Court did not accept the contentions raised on behalf of the

appellant in regard to the reduction of the land in question.

However, the Court granted relief to the appellant in relation

to an alternative site. There is hardly any scope for this Court

15

to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court.

While referring to the proposals which were made by the

respondents during the pendency of the case, the High Court

had concluded that the offer did not vest the appellant with

any indefeasible right to enforce those options. The offers

were made so as to find out what would be the best applicable

to the facts and circumstances of the case and it could not be

construed that they were absolute in nature. The right of the

appellant was to seek agricultural land under the provisions of

the Re-Settlement Act, 1965 and in so far as that right was

protected, the appellant could not ask for a particular land.

Some distance between the offered land and the land which

16

was in dispute has rightly not been considered to be a

sufficient ground for requiring the Court to grant the relief

prayed for in its terms. The grant of relief in relation to the

alternate land cannot be faulted with inasmuch as if there was

a mistake committed by the Revenue Authorities which was

subsequently corrected, no advantage can be claimed by the

petitioner in that regard, particularly when the mistake was in

relation to a root controversy. The land which was not subject

matter of the acquisition could not be treated as the land

having been offered to the appellant validly and in accordance

with law.

17 The High Court has passed multifold directions in

relation to granting of alternate land and conducting of an

enquiry by the competent authority as well. Thus, the

directions sufficiently take care of the interest of the appellant.

The judgment of the High Court is well-reasoned and even

grants the appropriate relief to the appellant. In fact, we fail to

understand the necessity for the appellant to file the present

appeal. The operative part of the judgment, which we have

afore-reproduced, not only gives appropriate relief to the

appellant but also takes care of the correction of errors and

enquiry into the relevant issues by the concerned authorities.

As far as the claim of compensation placed by the appellant is

18

concerned, again it has been left for the Government to decide

as per its policy. One fact which cannot be lost sight of by this

Court is that for all this period, the appellant has been reaping

benefits from the land to the exclusion of others.

In view of the fact that none of the counsel appearing for

the parties could confirm whether the directions issued by the

Court have been implemented in their entirety or not, and if

so, what is the stage of such implementation. In these

circumstances, while dismissing the present appeal as being

without any merit, we issue specific directions to the

respondents and all authorities concerned that the action in

furtherance to the directions issued by the High Court, if not

19

already completed, should be completed as expeditiously as

possible and the compliance thereto reported to the High

Court without any further delay.

The appeal is dismissed, however, without any order as

to costs.

....................................J.

[Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

....................................J.

[Swatanter Kumar]

New Delhi;

20 July 7, 2011.

21