Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 1303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANOOP V. MOHTA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
M/s. Sadanand Garage – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 2019 OF 2003
Decided on: 04 JULY 2014
Advocate Appeared
Mr. Rajivkumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y.R. Shah for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.G. Surana with Mr. Madhur Surana for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.R. Belosay “A” panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5.
None for the other Respondents.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land for public purpose. - Acquisition of land "for public purpose" and in "interest of public", cannot be interfered with at instance of tenant of land. - The acquisition was to achieve the aims and objects of Siddhivinayk Trust apart from charitable and public purpose. Court have to consider the totality of the matter including the trust requirement of to use and utilise the temple and its surrounding area/ plots. There is no denial to the fact of composite use of all the adjacent plots/properties being used since long, by putting the requisite construction of buildings for the people at large including devotees of all communities.
Such acquisition mode, for such public purpose, is recognized and accepted outside of Maharashtra, apart from famous temple of "Thirupati Balaji Trust". In Maharashtra also similar examples are "Saibaba Trust" and "Pandharpur Trust". Therefore, to say that such acquisition is not in the interest of public at large and the action is mala fide by breaching the provisions of law is unacceptable. The whole proceedings including acquisition, in our view, is in accordance with law.
Mere allegation of mala fide acquisition is not sufficient to set aside the acquisition. It requires substantial supporting material which are missing in this case. The disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into at this stage in this proceedings at the instance of petitioners/tenants. The owner never raised such objection.
It is difficult to restore the possession back in view of subsequent development and construction of temple surrounding area for the public at large. The petitioner-tenant in no way can be denied and/or disentitled to the claim compensation in accordance with law. Therefore, the judgments so cited and the contentions so raised revolving around Section 5-A hearing and/or respective objections, in the present facts and circumstances, at the instance of the petitioners, in absence of specific challenge and/or objection by the owner, Court inclined to dismiss and/or reject the contention. Section 6 Notification, therefore, issued by the Government after considering the objections and/or material so placed on record, is well within the framework of law and no interference, at the instance of petitioners-tenant, is called for.
(PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
The Petitioners/tenants have essentially challenged the acquisition of land acquired for Respondent No.2“ Shree Siddhivinayak Ganpati Mandir Trust” (for short, “the Siddhivinayak Trust”), constituted under the provisions of “Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust (Prabhadevi) Act, 1980” (for short, “Siddhi Vinayak Trust Act”), though the owner has never challenged the acquisition till this date.
2. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are tenants of Plot No. 901 admeasuring 769 sq. yards: 642.98 sq. meters. According to the Petitioners they were occupying a garage building of 2500 sq. ft, a mezzanine of 800 sq. ft. on the plot and an open area of the plot. Respondent No.2Siddhivinayak Trust owns plot No.904 and has constructed a temple structure of ground + 5 upper floors thereon. Plot No.902 is adjacent to the Temple Plot No.904. Respondent No.3the then owner had entered into Agreement of Sale in respect of Plot No.901 with Century Developers Private Limited, who had undertaken to develop Plot No.901 and had entered into various Agreements including with the Petitioners. Plot No. 901 was even offered for sale on “as is where is” basis by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2 Siddhivinayak Trust. Siddhivinayak Trust entered into Agreement with Respondent No.3Owners subject to Respondent No.3 removing all encumbrances including the claim of Century Developers Private Limited, the Petitioners and others. On 10 March 1998, the Siddhivinayak Trust, based upon a resolution, entered into an Agreement with the Petitioners and agreed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,73,50,000/within six months for surrendering of the Petitioners' right, but despite execution of the Agreement, the transaction did not fortify. The Siddhivinayak Trust again expressed their willingness to purchase the final plot with garage standing thereon in 2001. Siddhivinayak Trust, however, could not purchase Plot No. 901. Siddhivinayak Trust ultimately, wrote a letter to the Land and Revenue Ministry for acquisition of Plot No.901 (wrongly described as Plot No.905 and corrected lateron as Plot No. 901). The proposal was accordingly forwarded to the Collector, which was rejected with direction to move the proposal for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act1894 (for short, “LA Act”).
3. Report under Section 5A was submitted to Respondent No.5Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division by Respondent No.4 the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “SLAO”). Substantial amount was deposited accordingly. By letter dated 9 May 2002, the State Government granted approval under Clause 3 sub Clause (f) (vii) of the LA Act for acquisition of property under Mahim Division. It was also mentioned that a nominal grant of Rs.100/would be paid by the Government as part payment of the compensation amount. The SLAO was appointed in 2002.
4. A Notification under Section 4 issued on 12 September 2002 for acquiring the land/plot in question for “public purpose waiting hall and rest house for the devotees”. After measurement procedure was over, the SLAO issued notice to the Petitioners to appear with objection before 23 December 2002. On 21 December 2002, the Petitioners filed objections and challenged the acquisition. After inspection, the Petitioners filed further objections with the SLAO on 28 December 2002. The Petitioners thereafter, on 8 January 2003, requested for the personal hearing and filed other documents including the Agreement with Respondent No.2the Siddhivinayak Trust of Rs.2,73,50,000/whereby, as alleged, the Siddhivinayak Trust had agreed to pay the compensation for surrendering their rights but that transaction could not fortify. The fact of agreement to receive the compensation by the Petitioners, was never in dispute. The Petitioners received notice from the SLAO for hearing on 17 February 2003. The Petitioners asked for time.
5. Writ Petition No. 551 of 2003 was filed by the Petitioners in February 2003, thereby challengin
