1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 910 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 910 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 910 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1259 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1259 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1259 OF 2007 ALONG WITH ALONG WITH ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 911 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 911 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 911 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1260 OF 2003 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1260 OF 2003 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1260 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 910 OF 2007 SHRI VASUDEV KRISHNA GHARAT ) Age 33 years, Adult, Occupation ) Business, Resident at Khutukbandhan ) Taluka - Panvel, Dist. Raigad. )..APPELLANT/ (Org.Plaintif) Versus 1) Shri Gana Parshram Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) 2) Shri Sukir Kalya Bhagat ) Age - Adult Occ. Agriculturist ) 2 3) Shri Datta Kachrya Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Kachrya ) Shankar Bhagat. ) 4) Shri Nitin Baban Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Baban Kana ) Bhagat. ) 5) Shri Kisan Shanivar Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturst ) Legal heir of Shri Shanivar ) Kathor Bhagat. ) 6) Shri Prakash Vithal Kamble ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Vithal ) Mama Kamble ) 7) Shri BaburavDharma Kamble ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal heir of Dhamra Arjun ) Kamble ) 3 8) Shri Subhash Jagan Kamble ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Legal heir of Shri Jagan Kalya ) Kamble. ) 9) Shri Baban Urf Baburav Govarya ) Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 10) Shri Ganpat Undrya Gharat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 11) Shri Ram Ambo Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Ambo Krishna ) Bhagat. ) 12) Shri Baliram Shimgya Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal heir of Shri Shimghya ) Krishna Bhagat. ) 13) Shri Harichandra Kutya Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 14) Shri SavlaramGajanan Bhagat ) 4 Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) 15) Shri Bharat Kaluram Palsakar ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 16) Shri Baliram Kashinath Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 17) Shri Ganpat Namdev Bhagat ) Age - Adult,Occ.Agriculturist ) 18) Shri Ravi Datatray Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 19) Shri Ramu Kamlakar Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Oc.Agriculturist ) 20) Shri Tukaram Balu Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) all Indian Inhabitants ) residing at Village Kharghar, ) Taluka - Panel,Dist.Raigad. ) 21) Smt. Ahilya Govind Bhagat ) Legal heir and wife of late ) Shri Govind Balya Bhagat ) 5 Age Adult, Oc. Housewife, ) residing at Village Kharghar ) Taluka - Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ) 22) Shri Vishnu Kamlakar Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) residing at Village Kharghar. ) Taluka Panvel,Dist. Raigad. ) 23) Shri Gotiram Namdev Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) residing at Village Kharghar, ) Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ) 24) Shri Ramchandra Chambhanya Bhagat) Legal heir and son of late ) Shri Chambhanya Rama Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) residing at Village Kharghar, ) Taluka-Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ) 25) Shri Namdev Pandurang Bhagat ) Legal heir and son of late ) Shri Pandurang Kashinath Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Residing at Village-Kharghar, ) 6 Taluka- Panvel, Dist.Raigad. ) 26) M/s. Shivyash Developers ) a partnershipfirm duly ) registered under the Indian ) Partnership Act, 1932 through ) its partners ) A) Shri Vijay Raichand Nency ) B) Shri Ajay Raichand Nency ) C) Shri Akochhya Aroda ) having their ofice at 709, ) J.K.Chambers, Sector-17, ) Vashi, Navi Mumbai. ) 27) M/s. Devisha Infrasructure ) Private Limited ) A company duly rergistered ) under the Companies Act, 1956 ) through its one of the Director ) Shri Chandrakumar Balram ) having its registered ) office at 358B, Gangaram ) Khatrivadi, Room No.7, ) Jagarnath Shankarseth Marg, ) Thakurvadi, Mumbai 400 002. ) 7 28) M/s. Arihand Realtors ) a partnership firm duly ) registered under Indian ) Partnership Act, 1932, ) Through its partner ) Shri ASshok Kumar Bhavarlal ) Chhajer having its registeerd ) office at 302, Persipolice, ) Plot No.74, Sector-17, Vashi, ) Navi Mumbai. ) 29) City and Industrial Development ) Corporation of Maharashtra ) Limited (through the Chief ) Land & Survey Officer, 12-1/2% ) Department, CIDCO Bhawan, ) CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai. )..Respondents (Org.Defendants) WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 911 OF 2007 1) Shri Gana Parshram Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) 8 2) Shri Sukir Kalya Bhagat ) Age - Adult Occ. Agriculturist ) 3) Shri Datta Kachrya Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Kachrya ) Shankar Bhagat. ) 4) Shri Nitin Baban Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Baban Kana ) Bhagat. ) 5) Shri Kisan Shanivar Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturst ) Legal heir of Shri Shanivar ) Kathor Bhagat. ) 6) Shri Prakash Vithal Kamble ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Vithal ) Mama Kamble ) 7) Shri Baburav Dharma Kamble ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal heir of Dhamra Arjun ) 9 Kamble ) 8) Shri Subhash Jagan Kamble ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Legal heir of Shri Jagan Kalya ) Kamble. ) 9) Shri Baban Baburav Govarya ) Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 10) Shri Ganpat Undrya Gharat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 11) Shri Ram Ambo Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal Heir of Shri Ambo Krishna ) Bhagat. ) 12) Shri Baliram Shimgya Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) Legal heir of Shri Shimghya ) Krishna Bhagat. ) 13) Shri Harichandra Kutya Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 10 14) Shri Savlaram Gajanan Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) 15) Shri Bharat Kaluram Palsakar ) Age - Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) ..Appellants (Org. Plaintiffs) Versus 1) Smt.Ahilya Govind Bhagat ) Age - Adult, Occ. Housewife ) Legal heir of Shri Govind ) Balya Bhagat. ) 2) Shri Vishnu Kamlakar Bhagat ) Age-Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 3) Shri Gotiram Namdev Bhagat ) Age-Adult, Occ.Agriculturist. ) 4) Shri Ramchandra Chambariya Bhagat) Legal heir of late Shri ) Chambariya Rama Bhagat ) Age-Adult, Occ.Agriculturist ) 11 5) Shri Namdeo Pandurang Bhagat ) Legal heir of late Shri Pandurang) Kashinath Bhagat, ) Age-Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Indian INhabitants all ) residing at Kharghar, ) Tal. Panvel,Dist. Raigad. ) 6) M/s. Shivyash Developers, ) a partnership firm duly ) registered under the ) Partnership Act, 1932 ) (1) Shri Vijay Raichand Nency ) (2) Shri Ajay Raichand Nency ) (3) Shri Akshay Arora ) having their ofice at 709, ) J.K.Chambers, Sector-17, ) Vashi, Navi Mumbai. ) 7) M/s. Devisha Infrasructure ) Private Limited ) A company duly rergistered ) under the Companies Act, 1956 ) having its registered ) office at 358B, Gangaram ) 12 Khatrivadi, Room No.7, ) Jagarnath Shankarseth Marg, ) Thakurvadi, Mumbai 400 002. ) 8) M/s. Arihand Realtors ) a partnership firm duly ) registered under Indian ) Partnership Act, 1932, ) Through its partner ) Shri ASshok Kumar Bhavarlal ) Chhajer having its registeerd ) office at 302, Persipolice, ) Plot No.74, Sector-17, Vashi, ) Navi Mumbai. ) 9) The Chief Land & Survey Oficer ) City and Industrial Development ) Corporation of Maharashtra ) Limited CIDCO Bhawan, 1st Floor, ) CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai. ) 10) The Estate Officer ) 12.5% Scheme Depatment, ) The City and Industrial ) Development Corporation of ) 13 Mahaashta Limited, ) CIDCO Bhavan, 1st Floor, ) CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai. ) 11) Asst. Planning Officer, ) The City and Industrial ) Development Corporation of ) Maharashtra Limited, ) CIDCO BHAVAN, 1st Floor, ) CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai. )..Respondents (Org. Defendants) Appearance in A.O.No.910 of 2007 Mr. S.U.Kamdar, Senior Counsel, i/b. Mr. Vagish Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. V.A.Thorat, Senior Counsel i/b. M/s.Sonal Doshi &co. for Respondent No.26. Mr. Rohit Kapadia, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Deepak Chitnis, Advocate i/b. M/s. Deepak Chitnis-Chiparikar & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.27. Mr. G.S.Hegde, Advocate i/b. G.S.Hegde & Associates, for Respondent No.29. 14 Appearance in A.O. No.911 of 2007 Mr. A.K.Abhyankar, Senior Counsel i/b. M.Tripathi & Co. Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. G.S.Godbole, Advocate for Respondent No.8. Mr. G.S.Hegde, Advocate i/b. G.S.Hegde & Associates for Respondents Nos. 9, 10 and 11. Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Counsel for Mr. Hasmukh Danewalla for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 & 17 to 20. Mr.V.A. Thlorat, Senior Counsel, i/b. M/s. Sonal Doshi & Co. Advocates for Respondent No.6. Mr. Rohit Kapadia, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar,Senior Counsel and Mr. Deepak Chitnis, Advocate i/b. M/s. Deepak Chitnis Chiparikar & Co. Advocates for Respondent No.7. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT 1. Both these Appeals may be disposed of by common 15 Judgment though they arise out of two different suits because the property, most of the parties and the disputes are common. For the sake of convenience, the parties may be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants in Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2007 while the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.588 of 2007 - Vasudev Krishna Gharat may be referred by name for the sake of convenience. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 15 and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 belong to Bhagat Family and they held certain land bearing Survey Nos. 377, 372, 30, 13, 364, 378, 413, 48, 35, 62, 32, 63 and 116 at Kharghar. This property was held by in all 21 families. The property was acquired by the Government for the development of New Bombay through CIDCO. For the purpose of appearing before the concerned Acquisition Authorities, these 21 families had appointed defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as their representatives or panchas in the Village. In view of this, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 represented before the Land Acquisition Officer, Government and the CIDCO Authorities as the owners, but admittedly, they were representing all the 21 owners of the property. In view of this, on record, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were shown as owners of the property and the land was acquired from them. Accordingly, award was 16 passed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Later on, on representation made by them, the compensation amount was enhanced and that was also paid in their name. The payment was made sometime in 2005 and admittedly, that amount was distributed among all the 21 persons equally except such amount which was kept in Bank Account in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for the benefit of the 21 owners. Some time in 1995, with an intention to rehabilitate the actual cultivators whose land was acquired, the Government of Maharashtra, in consultation with CIDCO, came out with a Scheme commonly known as 12.5% Scheme. Under that Scheme, persons from whom Government had acquired the land for development of New Bombay, would be entitled to piece of land equivalent to 12.5% of the area of the land acquired from them. Inspite of the Scheme having been declared in 1995, the actual possession was not given till 2006. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 made a representation to the Government and the Hon’ble Chief Minister that the CIDCO Authorities had not made the allotment of land to them under the said 12.5% Scheme. In view of the representation, the Government issued instructions to the CIDCO and thereafter the CIDCO allotted three plots bearing Nos. 253, 254 and 269 in Sector 10, Kharghar which is part of CIDCO. As at the time of acquisition of the land, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were taken on record as owners 17 and award was passed in their favour only, the CIDCO also allotted these three plots in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The area of these three plots is approximately 15381 sq. mtrs. 3. It is contended by the plaintiffs that out of the 21 shareholders in the property, one family had relinquished their rights by accepting huge compensation and, therefore, only the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 15 and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have shares in the land allottede by CIDCO. However, without disclosing to the plaintiffs that the said three plots were allotted by the CIDCO under the 12.5% Scheme, defendants Nos. 1 to 5 illegally and without any authority from the plaintiffs entered into an agreement of development with defendant No.6 and executed a power of attorney in his favour. Defendant No.6 in turn entered into further agreements with defendants Nos. 7 and 8. As per the said agreements and the power of attorney, the CIDCO Authorities issued letter of allotment and lease in favour of defendants Nos. 7 and 8. As per that, defendant No.7 appears to have taken leasehold rights and right of development to the extent of 9990 sq. mtrs. and defendant no.8 has taken the plot admeasuring 5381 sq. mtrs. There appears slight discrepancy in the calculation of the total. According to the plaintiffs, 18 defendants Nos. 1 to 5 had no legal right or interest and authority to enter into any contract with the defendant No.6 about the said property. Each of the plaintiffs claims 1/21 share in the total area of 15381 sq. mtrs. allotted by CIDCO. Therefore, they filed the Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2007 seeking declaration of their share in the property and also declaration that all the agreements entered into by defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and in turn by defendant No.6 in favour of defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are null and void and not binding on them. They also sought injunction against defendants Nos. 9 to 11, who are the different Authorities of CIDCO not to issue any authoriisation in favour of the defendant Nos.7 and 8 and not to grant commencement and occupation certificates. They also sought injunction to restrain defendants Nos. 6 to 8 from making any development on the property. The plaintiffs also filed an application seeking temporary injunction of the same nature against the defendants. 4. Vasudev Gharat is the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.588 of 2007 and appellant in Appeal No.910 of 2007. He claims that the above referred 15 plaintiffs and 5 others had represented to him that under the 12.5% Scheme, they were expecting allotment of 15000 sq. mtrs. plot and they were entitled to 15/21 share in the 19 said land and as such they will be entitled to get an area of 10,800 sq. mtrs. By making this representation, they entered into an agreement with the plaintiff - Vasudev for sale of 10,800 sq. mtrs. land after the allotment of land from CIDCO, for consideration of Rs.16,20,00,000/-. That agreement was executed on 10.8.2006. He claims to have paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the said 15 persons by various cheques and an amount of Rs.2 lakhs in cash. According to him, the balance amount of Rs.15,98,00,000/- is payable on issuance of letter of allotment by the CIDCO. In the second week of August 2007, when the plaintiff - Vasudev approached the said persons to complete the formalities of sale, he was informed by them that the CIDCO had illegally allotted the three plots bearing Nos. 253, 254 and 269 in Sector 10, Kharghar in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 to 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff - Vasudev pursued the matter with the said plaintiffs to complete the contract, but they did not give proper response and then he came to know that the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 had transferred the property in favour of defendant No.6, who in turn had transferred the same to defendants Nos. 7 and 8. With these pleadings, he filed suit for specific performance of the contract and also sought several other consequential reliefs including injunction to restrain the said 20 defendants Nos. 6 to 8 from carrying on any development on the said land. He had also filed an application for temporary injunction of the same nature. 5. The above referred plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 15 supported the claim of the plaintiff - Vasudev by filing a reply to his Application in Special Civil Suit No.588 of 2007. 6. In both the suits, the applications for temporary injunction were contested mainly by the above referred defendants Nos. 2 to 8 in Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2007. Even the CIDCO Authorities supported the stand taken by these defendants. The common stand is that the land was acquired by the Government from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and their names were in the records as holders of the property. Under the 12.5% Scheme, the land was not granted or allotted as compensation, but only for the purpose of rehabilitation of the persons who were in actual possession of the land when it was acquired by the Government. It is contended that because the land was acquired from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 only, the CIDCO Authorities allotted the said 3 plots admeasuring about 15381 sq. mtrs. in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and not in favour of total 21 persons. They denied that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 21 did not have any authority to transfer the said property in favour of defendant No.6. According to defendant Nos. 6 to 8, the acquisition of the land had taken place in 1983-84 and names of the plaintiffs were never shown as owners and, therefore, without any knowledge of any right or interest of the plaintiffs in the acquired property or in the land allotted by the CIDCO, defendant No.6 had entered into an agreement with defendant Nos. 1 to 4. as defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were the ostensible owners of the property, defendant No.6 was the bonafide purchaser of the property and, according to them, an amount of Rs.5,25,00,000/- has been paid to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant No.6, in turn, entered into contract with defendant Nos. 7 and 8. As stated earlier, defendant No.7 took lease and right of development over the plot admeasuring 9990 sq. mtrs. and defendant No.8 took such rights over the land admeasuring 5381 sq. mtrs. According to them, they are also bonafide purchasers for value without knowledge of the rights of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 15. They have got plans for development and construction sanctioned from the CIDCO Authorities. The huge buildings are proposed to be constructed. Large number of prospective buyers have booked their flats in the buildings and they have invested money in it. The construction on the said buildings was commenced and when this litigation 22 commenced, the plinth area was completed. According to defendant No.7, it has already spent more than Rs.8 crores and according to defendant No.8, it has spent more than Rs.6 crores on cost of land and the construction. It is contended that in such circumstances, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 in Special Civil Suit No.534 of 2007 have no right, title or interest in the property. Similarly, the plaintiff - Vasudev in Suit No.588 of 2007 does not get any legal right, title or interest in the property on the basis of the alleged agreement with the said plaintiffs. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the Application Exhibit 5 filed by the plaintiff Vasudev in Special Civil Suit No.588/2007. The learned trial Court also held that the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2007 had failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour and that the balance of convenience is not in their favour and that they are not likely to suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. In the result, the Application Exhibit 5 filed by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2007 also came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.434 of 2007 have preferred A.O. No.911 of 2007 and the plaintiff - Vasudev has preferred A.O. No.910 of 2007. 23 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties in both the matters. Perused the relevant documents and the impugned orders. 9. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that in all 21 persons belonging to Bhagat family held the property which was acquired by the Government some time in 1983-84 for the purpose of development of New Bombay. The work was to be carried by the CIDCO. Even though in all 21 persons held share in the said property, for the purpose of dealing with the Land Acquisition Officer, the Government and CIDCO, they had appointed four persons, viz. (1) Govind Balya Bhagat, (2) Vishnu Kamlakar Bhagat, (3) Gotiram Namdev Bhagat and (4) Ramchandra Chambariya Bhagat as their representatives and panchas. Accordingly, names of these four persons were recorded in the records as holders of the property and the land was acquired and award was passed in the names of these four persons, but there was clear understanding among all the 21 persons, including these four persons, that the compensation which would be paid by the Government shall be shared equally by all the 21 persons because each of them had equal share in the land which was acquired. It may be clarified here that Govind Balya Bhagat was party to all the transactions 24 but he had died prior to the commencement of this litigation and Govind Bhagat is shown as defendant No.1 through his widow Ahilyabai. Defendant No.5 - Namdeo Pandurang Bhagat is also one of those 21 persons, but he was shown as defendant on the allegation that he was working as a broker between defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant No.6 in the said transactions. Though the land was acquired in 1984, the compensation was paid in February,1994 in the names of these four defendants. That amount was deposited in Bank of Maharashtra, Panvel Branch. In January, 2001, substantial amount was paid as enhanced compensation. That was also deposited in the joint account of these four persons with Bank of India, Panvel Branch. Interest on these deposits accrued from time to time and by July,2003, an amount of Rs.1,72,37,446/- was in deposit. Part of this amount was distributed sometime in 2005 among the 21 shareholders and a part of the amount is still in deposit with Banks. 10. Admittedly, in the year 1995, the Government of Maharashtra, in consultation with the CIDCO,came out with the 12.5% Scheme. According to the State of Maharashtra and the CIDCO, 12.5% land was not to be given as compensation, but only for rehabilitation of the actual occupants from whom the land was acquired by 25 the Government. As since 1983-84, the land, which was acquired, was recorded in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and since the award was passed in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 only and the compensation was also paid in their names, the CIDCO Authorities allotted the three plots admeasuring about 15381 sq. mtrs. in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 under the said Scheme. The plaintiffs were never in picture in taking steps with the Government or CIDCO for the allotment of the said land. However, it is impossible to accept the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs could not claim any share in this land. Admittedly, these plots under the 12.5% Scheme were allotted in the names of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 only because certain land was acquired by the Government from them in 1983-84. Even though it was not a compensation in the strict sense, admittedly, under the Scheme, the land was allotted only to these persons from whom the land was acquired. So indirectly