2007 Supreme(Bom) 1105
Bombay High Court
R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR and SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ
UNION OF INDIA -Appeallant
Versus
MOHAMMED MASUD MOHAMMED, MAOSHIN BHAIJI -RESPONDENTS
F. A 455 Of 1994
Decided On: 08/10/2007
A.M.Sethna, A.R.PATIL, AMIT SHINDE, ANURAG GOKHALE, B.A.Desai, BODHANVALA, GIRISH S.KULKARNI, M.I.SETHNA, MILAN BHISE, Naveena Kumari, RAJIVKUMAR, RITESH WAGH, S.D.BHOSALE, S.N.Gawade, S.R.RAJGURU, S.V.More, SHEKHAR NAPHADE, SWATI DESHPANDE, Y.M.NAKHWA
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 11 and 18 - Issue of worship is beyond the scope of powers under Section 18. - It is not in dispute that the notification and the declaration under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the said Act were in relation to the leasehold and other limited interest in the land and not in relation to the ownership right in the land in question. Being so, there was no occasion either for the Land Acquisition Officer or for the Reference Court to deal with the aspect of title of the land or the issue of ownership of the land. Once the title of the property or ownership of the land is beyond the scope of the acquisition, one fails to understand how it can form subject- matter of dispute before the Reference Court. The reference under Section 18 of the said Act, as it is well settled, can be only of the dispute pertaining to the subject-matter of acquisition. In the case in hand, subject-matter of acquisition being limited and restricted to the leasehold rights and other outstanding interests, other than ownership right in the land, neither the Collector had occasion to refer such issue for adjudication nor it was referred and for the same reasons also the Reference Court could not have exceeded its jurisdiction and assumed jurisdiction to deal with the issue of title of ownership of the property. The Government, therefore, is justified in contending that the issue of ownership is beyond the scope of powers under Section 18 of the said Act in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
( 1 ) HEARD at length the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records as well as written submissions. We have also gone through the various statutory provisions referred to in the course of arguments as also all the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates in their oral as well as written submissions.
( 2 ) THE appeal and the cross appeal arise from the award dated 23rd June, 1993 passed by the Reference court of Raigad at Alibag in the Land Acquisition reference No. 184 of 1986 which is a common award by which the Reference Court has disposed of 79 land acquisition reference cases. The appellants in First appeal No. 455 of 1994 are the respondents in First appeal No. 741 of 1995 and are hereinafter called as
"the Government", and the appellants in First Appeal no. 741 of 1995 are the respondents in First Appeal no. 455 of 1994 and are hereinafter called as "the claimants".
( 3 ) THE land acquisition proceedings under the land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as "the said Act", commenced with the publication of notification dated 3rd February, 1970 under Section 4 of the said Act followed by a declaration under section 6 issued in the month of May, 1972. However, the said notification and the declaration were cancelled on 26th February, 1973 and fresh notification under Section 4 of the said Act came to be issued on 26th February, 1973 followed by declaration under Section 6 thereof on 11th December, 1975, proposing to acquire "all leasehold and other outstanding interests in the lands owned by the central and the State Governments specified in the schedule appended to the said notification and which were occupied and used for manufacture of salt". The land referred to in the notification and the declaration bears Survey No. 205 and admeasurs 67 acres, 25 gunthas and 12 ares and is situated in the village Sheva, Taluka - Uran, District - Raigad. The notice under Section 9 of the said Act came to be issued on 31st October, 1983 which was replied by the claimants on 21st November, 1983. The award under section 11 of the said Act came to be declared on 29th september, 1984 whereby the claimants were held to be not entitled for any compensation since the owner of the land in question is the Union of India. Meanwhile, the some of the claimants had filed Civil suit No. 54 of 1984 against the Union of India and the state of Maharashtra in the District Court, Alibag, he owners of the land and for injunction. Consequent to the declaration of award, the claimants preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the said Act on 12th November, 1984 which was registered as the land Acquisition Reference No. 184 No. 1986. Meanwhile, on 9th October, 1984, the claimants had filed Writ petition No. 4283 of 1984 challenging the notification and the award. The said writ petition was rejected on 5th/6th August, 1985. The Special Leave Petition no. 12620 of 1985 against the said order of dismissal of the writ petition was also dismissed by the Apex court on 9th December, 1985. Thereafter, by an order dated 25th March, 1987, the reference court rejected the application for joinder of salt department of the government of India as the party to the land acquisition proceedings. The same was challenged in the Writ Petition No. 2875 of 1987which petition came to be disposed of by a consent order on 21st August, 1987 by which the Union of India was added as the party to the reference proceedings. By the common award dated 23rd June, 1993, the reference court held the claimants to be the owners of the land and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre and rs. 5,000/- per acre as the cost of construction along with the other statutory benefits. The matter came up in appeal before this Court filed by both the parties,. e. by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and by the Government for quashing the award. On 26th july, 1994, an application was made for joinder of jnpt as the p