Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Motiram Zingar Wawre – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 113-126, 135 of 2015 and Civil Revision Application No. 3 of 2016
Decided on : 31-03-2017
Though observations were made with regard to lands earlier covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and subsequently acquired under the said Act, the law laid down by the Full Bench would be equally applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, the statutory right of a land holder to seek enhancement in the amount of compensation cannot be defeated by obtaining an affidavit/undertaking from the land holder that he would not seek enhancement in the amount of compensation by filing reference under Section 18 of the said Act.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 18(3)-Enhancement of compensation.-Seeking enhancement in compensation under Section 18 of Act is a statutory right of landowner.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 18(3)-Reference.-Since reference under Section 18 of Act seeking enhancement in compensation is statutory right of land holder hence order refusing permission to deposit court-fees in reference application unjustified.
Insofar as the plea of estoppel is concerned, suffice it to say that estoppel cannot operate against a statute as held in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta v. B.N. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1979 SC 1725. It was observed that estoppel against statute is not permissible as public policy animating a statutory provision would then become the casualty.
Once it is found that the statutory right of the applicants to seek enhancement in the amount of compensation by making reference under Section IS of the said Act cannot be defeated in such manner, the entire basis of the action of the Additional Collector in treating the proceedings as closed without making reference to the Civil Court falls to the ground. The other reason mentioned that the Court fee stamps on the reference application cannot be permitted to be deposited also cannot be upheld in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Shyam Dharam Dagle and others (supra) and Single Judge in Lalbahadur Ram Yadav (supra). As held by the Division Bench, the Collector can grant time to pay Court fees and by passing a conditional order in that regard, forward the proceedings it to the Civil Court.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11 and 18(3)-Reference for enhancement of compen- sation.-Reference Court, while determining fair compensation, should consider amount received by land holder under rehabilitation package.
Insofar as receipt of the amount under the Rehabilitation Package by the applicants is concerned, it was urged on behalf of the non-applicants that said amount should be first repaid by the applicants to the State, after which the applicants should be permitted to prosecute their claims for enhancement. This submission does not deserve to be accepted.
It is always open for the acquiring body to contend before the Reference Court that while enhancing the amount of compensation, if found necessary, it should take into consideration such amount of rehabilitation compensation received by the claimant and accordingly determine the amount of fair compensation. To that extent, the enhancement in the amount of compensation could be set-off. However, said aspect is kept open for being considered by the reference Court as and when the occasion for the same arises.
1. The question that arises for adjudication in these Civil Revision Applications filed under Section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”) is:-
Whether the claimants would be precluded from pursuing proceedings for enhancement in the amount of compensation under Section 18 (1) of the said Act on the ground that they had received some amounts under the Rehabilitation Package of the State Government?
2. The facts in all these revision applications are similar and for sake of convenience reference is made to the facts in Civil Revision Application No. 113 of 2015. The lands of the applicant came to be acquired pursuant to Award dated 10th February, 2001 that was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The lands in question were acquired for the Gosekhurd Irrigation Project. After issuing notice under Section 12 (2) of the said Act, the applicant received the amount of compensation. Thereafter, reference proceedings were filed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. In the meanwhile, on 18th June, 2013, the State Government took a decision to grant compensation under the Rehabilitation Package to the persons affected by the Gosekhurd Irrigation Project. The applicant received compensation under said Package. Thereafter, the applicant sought permission to deposit court fees on the reference application. The Additional Collector held that as the applicant had after filing an undertaking that he would not seek enhancement in the amount of compensation by filing reference under Section 18 of the said Act received the amount of compensation under the Rehabilitation Package, he was not entitled to seek permission for depositing court fees. On that basis, the proceedings came to be filed vide Order dated 29th June, 2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the applicant has filed Civil Revision Application No. 113 of 2015.
3. Smt. V. N. Chitnavis, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the Additional Collector committed an error by refusing to entertain the reference proceedings and by treating the same to be closed on the ground that the applicants had received compensation under Rehabilitation Package. She submitted that the reference proceedings had been filed within the stipulated period of limitation prescribed by Section 18 (2) of the said Act and hence they ought to be adjudicated on merits. It was only if the requirements of Section 18 were not fulfilled, that the Additional Collector could refuse to refer the proceedings to the Civil Court. Acceptance of compensation under the Rehabilitation Package of the State Government could not have the effect of depriving the applicants of their statutory right to seek enhancement in the amount of compensation. The undertaking submitted by the applicants while receiving compensation under the Rehabilitation Package would not have the effect of depriving the applicants of their statutory rights. It was, therefore, submitted that the reference proceedings deserve to be entertained on merits. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(a) Baliram Ramaji Ghate Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2010 (5) Mh. L.J. 465),
(b) Sham Dharma Dagle & others Vs. State of Mah. & others (2013 (4) Mh. L.J. 818), and
(c) Lalbahadur Ram Yadav & others Vs. State of Mah. & others (AIR 2004 Bombay 410).
4. Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the Non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 and Shri S. G. Jagtap, learned counsel for the non-applicant no.3, supported the impugned order. According to them, the applicants had undertaken in writing that on receiving the amount of compensation under the Rehabilitation Package, they would not seek enhancement in the amount of compensation by initiating proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act. They referred to various documents/affidavits executed by the applicants in that regard. It was urged th
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
