1. Ownership dispute between Union of India and State Government over acquired land — Apportionment of compensation in land acquisition proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1794
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : Ruma Pal
Union Of India
Versus
Mundra Salt And Chemical Industries
Case No. : 2269 of 1997
Date of Decision : 11/14/00
Advocates Appeared: Bhaskar M.Vijay : Deshpande S.V. : Deshpandey S.V. : Goswamy N.N. : Iyer T.L.Vishwanatha : Karanjkar Sushil Kumar : Kumar Ashwini : Lalit U.U. : Mehra D.S. : Nanda Rajiv : Radhakrishnann C. : Rohtagi Mukul : Sharma A.K. : Subramanium Gopal : Tamta Binu
Post-Constitution, the Central Government cannot claim ownership of land via colonial-era provisions vesting land in the Crown; ownership is determined by Article 294 and the division of powers, with land and land revenue typically vesting in the State Government.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 294 - Succession to property, assets, rights, liabilities and obligations - Determination of whether property vested in the Crown for the purposes of the Government of each Governor's Province shall vest in the corresponding State - Ownership between the Central Government and the State Government to be tested under this Article and not under obsolete colonial-era legislation (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 99 and 100 - Demarcation of legislative powers between federal and provincial legislation - Land and land revenue falling under the provincial list (Paras 13)
(C) Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Section 37 - Vesting of lands not property of individuals in the Crown - Such provision cannot confer title on the Central Government after the commencement of the Constitution of India and the establishment of federalism (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Apportionment of compensation - Question of ownership to be decided based on the constitutional vesting of property and the division of legislative powers (Paras 2, 14)
Facts of the case:
Land was sold through a public auction on an ownership basis, and the purchaser deposited the full amount and took possession. Revenue records were mutated in the names of the respondents. In previous land acquisition proceedings by other authorities, the respondents' title was recognized, and compensation was paid. However, during a subsequent acquisition proceeding for a highway, the Central Government challenged the respondents' ownership, asserting that they were merely lessees and that the Central Government was the owner based on Section 37 of the 1879 Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Central Government cannot claim title under Section 37 of the 1879 Code. Since land and land revenue were provincial subjects under the Government of India Act, 1935, and are now State subjects under the Constitution, the ownership of such land vests with the State Government, not the Central Government. The respondents were correctly recognized as owners.
Issues: Whether the suit land is owned by the Central Government or the State Government, and whether Section 37 of the 1879 Code can be used to establish the Central Government's title post-Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the concept of exclusive Crown ownership dissolved upon the commencement of the Constitution. Under Article 294, properties previously vested in the Crown for provincial purposes vest in the respective States. As land and land revenue fall under the State List, the Central Government has no claim to ownership based on an obsolete colonial provision that precedes the federal structure of the Indian state.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- constitutional law
-
practice and procedure
-
land acquisition
-
compensation
- apportionment (Para 2)
-
compensation
-
land acquisition
- interpretation of statutes
Table of Contents
2. Union argued Crown ownership under Section 37, 1879 Code; State argued State ownership under Article 294, Constitution and Government of India Act, 1935. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 )
3. Section 37 of 1879 Code is obsolete after the Constitution; ownership determined under Article 294, not the Crown-centric provision. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Post-Constitution, ownership of land between Union and State is determined under Article 294, not Section 37 of the 1879 Code. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs; High Court judgment confirming State ownership upheld. (Para 15 )
6. Does Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 govern ownership disputes between the Union and the State after the Constitution?
No. After the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constitution, ownership is determined under Article 294, not the obsolete Section 37. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. How is property ownership between the Union and the State determined under Article 294 of the Constitution?
Property vested in His Majesty for the Dominion of India vests in the Union; property vested for a Governors Province vests in the corresponding State. (Para 13 )
8. Does legislative entry over land and land revenue in the Government of India Act, 1935 indicate State ownership?
Yes. Land (Entry 21) and land revenue (Entry 39) fell under the provincial list, indicating control by the State Government. (Para 13 , 14 )
9. Can a prior High Court judgment relying on Section 37 of the 1879 Code be followed after the Constitution?
No. Section 37 has no application for a claim by the Union after the Constitution and Government of India Act, 1935. (Para 15 )
A.P. Misra, J.
(1) THE present appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the appellants appeal, challenging the order of the District Judge holding that the respondents are owners of the suit land and the grant made by the Government in their favour was in fact a sale and not merely lease or licence to manufacture salt on the suit land.
(2) THE question raised in these appeals is: who is the owner of the suit land, whether the appellant-Union of India or the State Government? This is raised in the land acquisition proceeding, in the context of adjudication of the apportionment of the compensation. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to give certain facts.
(3) ON 22/5/1952 Tehsildar issued a notification for sale of Khajan (Marshy) land on ownership basis through public auction. In the public auction dated 12/6/1952 Hanumanbux Lalchand Mundra offered highest bid and deposited the part amount on the same day towards the price of land. The balance amount was deposited on 26/6/1952. On 5/5/1955 the Collector confirmed the said auction sale. As a consequence, on 25/5/1955 an agreement was executed with the said purchaser and on 24/11/1955 the Circle Officer handed over the possession of the land. Through mutation Entry No. 227 dated 24/2/1970 the names of all the partners of respondent No. 1 were entered in the revenue records. In the land acquisition proceedings for the construction of highway a portion of land bearing S1. No. 386(p) Mulund through the award, ownership of respondent No. 1 was recognised and compensation was held to be payable to the said Hanumanbux Lalchand Mundra. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay also acquired a portion of the land purchased in public auction held on 12/6/1952 and through an award dated 13/4/1972 accepted the TITle of the respondents and paid compensation to the partners of the respondents. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Sec. 128 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued by the Government of Maharashtra for acquiring land measuring 32,506 Sq. Mtrs. Out of Gat. No. 86(p). A notification dated 11/11/1980 under Sec. 126 of the said Act read with Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. The respondents challenged these notifications through a writ peTITion in which respondents agreed to hand over possession of the aforesaid area. The respondents accordingly handed over possession of the said area and submitted their claim for compensation.
(4) IT is at this stage, the Salt Department of the Union of India challenged the ownership of the respondents in respect of this acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter of ownership to the Collector who held respondents to be the owners. However, on 19th September, 1986 the Collector in review proceedings held, Union of India to be the owner and respondents were only the lessees who were enTITled to receive compensation only for the loss of their business. The respondents challenged this order through a writ peTITion. The High Court quashed the aforesaid order and directed the District Judge to decide this question of ownership of land in pending Land Acquisition Ref. No. 90 and 91 of 1986. In this, only Union of India and not the Government of Maharashtra filed written statement. The aforesaid references of the respondent were allowed. The Court held that respondents were the owners and were enTITled for the compensation calculated at the market value of Rs. 80.00 per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this the appellants filed the first appeal before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court confirmed respondents to be owners of the acquired land. However, the rate of compensation was reduced from Rs. 80.00 per sq. mtr. to Rs. 70.00 per sq. mtr. The High Court held, that Sec. 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code of 1879 (
