Noor Sk. Bhikan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

July 7, 2011.