Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
M.S. SONAK, J.
Syed Miya - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through the Surplus Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad - Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 450 of 2005 & 720 of 2005
Decided On : 08-02-2018
For the Petitioner:N.K. Kakade, Advocate, A.N. Kakade, AGP.
For the Respondent:B.V. Virde, Advocate.
Proper execution and proof of agreements between the person to be compensated and the State Government are essential, and the impleadment of necessary parties is crucial in land acquisition cases.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Agreement - Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, Section 33(1), 33(2), 33(3), 33(3)(A), 33(4), 34, 36(1), 36(2), 36(3) - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, particularly focusing on the requirements and implications of agreements between the person to be compensated and the State Government. The court emphasized the need for proper execution and proof of such agreements and highlighted the procedure for determination of compensation in case of disagreement.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested the judgment and award made by the Reference Court, claiming that there was no agreement between him and the State Government for the payment of compensation for acquired land. The respondent argued that the compensation amount had been accepted by the appellant and that the References were dismissed due to non-impleadment of the acquiring body, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Reference Court erred in accepting a xerox copy of the alleged agreement as legal evidence and concluded that the matter should be remanded for determination of compensation. The court also directed the impleadment of MIDC as a party respondent and granted both parties an opportunity to produce evidence before the Reference Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the existence and validity of the agreement between the appellant and the State Government, the acceptance of compensation, and the non-impleadment of MIDC as a necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper execution and proof of agreements between the person to be compensated and the State Government, highlighting the procedure for determination of compensation in case of disagreement. It also stressed the importance of impleading necessary parties in land acquisition cases.
Final Decision: The impugned judgments and awards were set aside, and the References were restored to the Reference Court for expeditious disposal within six months. The court directed the Reference Court to allow both parties and MIDC to lead evidence and clarified that all contentions were left open for determination.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the commonalities of the facts in the two matters, both these appeals can be disposed of by common Judgment and order.
2. The challenge in both these appeals is to the Judgment and award made by the Reference Court on 20.8.1993 rejecting the References made by the appellant on the ground that such References were not at all maintainable, since, the appellant was allegedly paid compensation in terms of the agreement arrived at between him and the State Government.
3. Mr. N.K.Kakade the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case, it was incumbent upon the State Government to produce the so called agreement on record, if indeed there was any such agreement executed between the appellant and the State Government. He submits that in this case, the appellant led evidence to show that he had not executed any agreement with the State Government and therefore, relying solely upon the unilateral statement made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, it could not have been held that there was some agreement between the appellant and the State Government in the matter of payment of compensation for the acquired land. Mr.Kakade points out that on behalf of the respondent, no evidence was led to rebut the evidence of the appellant. Mr.Kakade submits that the Reference Court, has erred in placing reliance upon the xerox copy of the so called alleged agreement, which was merely handed over to the Reference Court. He submits that in this case, no responsible officer on behalf of the respondent chose to step into the witness box and to produce either original agreement or even a xerox copy of the alleged original agreement as and by way of secondary evidence. The xerox copy is simply handing in alongwith an application and the Reference Court by making cursory comparison of the signatures, has erroneously held that this was the agreement entered into between the appellant and the State Government and on such basis dismissed the reference. Mr.Kakade submits that this is the procedure unknown to law and therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set aside and the References are liable to be allowed.
4. Mr.B.V.Virde the learned AGP for the respondent submits that in this case, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector makes specific reference to the agreement between the parties. Further, xerox copy of the agreement which contains signature of the appellant as well as representatives of the State Government was produced on record. He submits that there is presumption that all acts of the Government are deemed to be validly undertaken and he submits that in the present case such presumption has not been rebutted by the appellant. He submits that compensation amount has also been accepted by the appellant. Taking into consideration all these aspects, Mr.B.V.Virde submits that there is no error in the impugned awards and therefore, these appeals may be dismissed. Mr.B.V.Virde further submits that the References warranted rejection on account of non-impleadment of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), which is acquiring body, as a party respondent. He submits that in the absence of such a necessary party, the Reference is required to be dismissed and has rightly been dismissed.
5. Rival contentions now fall for determination.
6. In the present case, there is no dispute that acquisition was for the benefit of the MIDC. This is the reason why the acquisition proceeding was also undertaken under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act). Chapter VI of the MID Act deals with the provisions related to acquisition of the land.
7. Section 33(1) of the MID Act provides that where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition, compensation, the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Section 33(2) prov
