Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, S.A.Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Respondent
C.A. No. 1968 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26467 of 2013)
Decided On : 17-02-2015
Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act - Section 38E - Negotiations - Possession of said land - Acquisition of land - Dispute relates to land admeasuring sq. meters out of Survey Aurangabad – Initially said land was reserved for Washer and subsequently was acquired for purpose of Washers by Appellant-Corporation through private negotiations and possession of said land was handed over by original owner – Thereafter said original owner being a protected tenant under Section 38E of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act applied for post-facto permission under Section 50B of said Act from competent authority for alienation of land in favor of Appellant-Corporation – Accordingly competent authority duly granted post-facto sanction vide its order - High Court was pleased to allow said Writ Petition by observing that claim of Appellant-Corporation about its title to land in question was dubious - Held, It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favor of any one or other nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes right and title of rightful owner – Normally mutation is recorded on basis of possession of land for purposes of collecting revenue - In present case Court find that a disputed question of fact was raised by parties with regard to title over land in question - Appellant-Corporation on one hand based its claim of title on payment of amount by depositing it in court and possession of land taken pursuant to agreement reached between Appellant-Corporation and father of the Respondent No. 2 - On other hand case of 2nd Respondent is that amount was not deposited by Appellant-Corporation with regard to land in question - In view of fact that there is a disputed question of fact Court are of view that it was not a fit case for High Court to decide question of mutation doubting title in a petition under Article 226 of Constitution and thereby reversing concurrent finding of fact by competent authorities - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"' against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 10512 of 2010 with Civil Application No. 8801 of 2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the 2nd Respondent - Jaisingh s/o. Bhimsingh Pardeshi.
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
2.1 The dispute relates to land admeasuring 15881 sq. mtrs. out of Survey No. 12, Shahnoorwadi, Aurangabad. Initially, the said land was reserved for "Washery" (Dhobi Ghat) and subsequently was acquired for the purpose of "Washery" by the Appellant-Corporation through private negotiations and the possession of the said land was handed over by the original owner-Bhimsingh (father of Respondent No. 2) on 01.08.1985. Thereafter, the said original owner being a protected tenant under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act(hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), applied for post-facto permission under Section 50B of the said Act, from the competent authority for alienation of the land in favour of the Appellant-Corporation. Accordingly, the competent authority duly granted post-facto sanction vide its order dated 16.01.1986.
2.2 Just before the acquisition of the said land for Washery (Dhobi Ghat), the Appellant-Corporation had also acquired land admeasuring 6283 sq. mtr. for D.P. Road of 80 feet and 50 feet out of the said Survey No. 12, by private negotiations. At that point of time, the original owner had submitted a lay out plan for the remaining land, of Survey No. 12 (excluding the land which was acquired for 80 & 50 feet D.P. Road and for Dhobi Ghat). The original owner had requested the Appellant-Corporation for adjusting the betterment charges for sanctioning of his layout with the amount of compensation to be received by him for the land acquired for 80 and 50 feet D.P. Road. The Appellant-Corporation accepted his request by passing a resolution dated 23.05.1985 and thereby the amount of Rs.1,53,950/- payable as compensation for the land acquired for 80 and 50 feet D.P. Road, stood paid, being adjusted against the betterment charges payable for sanctioning of the lay out for the remaining land out of Survey No. 12 (i.e. land out of Survey No. 12 excluding land acquired for Dhobi Ghat and 50 & 80 feet D.P. Road.).
2.3 The original owner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 1832/1989 before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and sought (a) enhancement of compensation for the land acquired for 50 and 80 feet D.P. Road and (b) compensation for land acquired for Dhobi Ghat. The said original owner accepted the parting of possession and factum of acquisition, hence did not raise any objection as regards to acquisition or the procedure thereof.
2.4 After hearing the parties, the High Court by an interim order dated 06.12.1989 directed the Appellant-Corporation to deposit Rs. 2,85,100/- (the amount which was agreed as compensation between the parties towards the area admeasuring 15881 sq. mtrs. acquired for Dhobi Ghat). The original owner thereafter, filed Civil Application No. 4658/1994 in the said writ petition No. 1832/89, seeking withdrawal of said compensation by reaffirming that the land was acquired for Dhobi Ghat and D.P. Roads.
2.5 The High Court after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition by observing that, once the land was acquired by private negotiations and rate of compensation was agreed, the Petitioner therein could not have turned back and claimed higher rate of compensation after a long time lapse of about five years. The said order shows that the issue regarding change of user alone was kept open and rest of the issues stood concluded. It appears that the said order was challenged by the original owner before this Court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
