Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
Union of India Through the Deputy Salt Commissioner - Petitioner
Versus
Laxman Yadneshwar Sathe - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 956 of 2017
Decided On : 24-04-2018
For the Petitioner:S.R. Rajguru a/w. Ashish Mehta, Ojas Gole, Dhruvi Shah, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sanjiv A. Sawant, Advocate.
Headnote:
Public Premises Act, 1971, - Section 4 - Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 - Section 4(d) - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 4 - A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 6 - Quash - Enquiry - Consequential relief injunction was also sought restraining Defendant - Union of India from disturbing his possession in suit property without following due process of law - Relevant relief which was sought in plaint was of declaration that notice issued by Defendant - Deputy Salt Commissioner be declared as illegal arbitrary without authority and same may be quashed and set aside accordingly Defendant be restrained from continuing enquiry started provisions of Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act hereinafter referred to as Public Premises Act – Held, Case Estate Officer will be most competent person to decide whether premises belong to Government or otherwise He alone is having jurisdictions jurisdiction of Civil Court is expressly barred in view of Section Public Premises Act to challenge notice issued said Act – Though submission counsel for Respondent is that Respondent is also owner of land below salt pans in my considered opinion such submission cannot be accepted unless there is some document of title to prove fact- As held by Hobble Apex Court therefore in case Another - Secretary to Government of Karnataka Revenue Department and Others supra west lands are presumed to be Government lands - Rights entitlement and presumptions of title lie in favor of Government distinguished from those of private parties- As held by this Court also way back in year case of Secretary of State for India in Council –Others Indian Law Reports Government is presumed to be owner in case of lands which are not proved to be private party - Even otherwise also Respondent is entitled and is at liberty to show before Estate Officer that he is owner of said land they do not belong to Government and hence they do not fall within definition of Public Premises as contemplated said Act- Estate Officers by Division Bench of this Court referred above is competent to decide said issue - Thus in view of bar laid down in Section Public Premises Ac fact remains that Civil Court cannot entertain suit to challenge notice issued by Estate Officer Section of Act or restrain Estate Officer from continuing with enquiry - Petition allowed
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr.Rajguru, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Sanjiv Sawant, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 2nd April 2016 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, below the “Preliminary Issue” in Regular Civil Suit No. 221 of 2013.
3. The facts of the Writ Petition are to the effect that, Respondent, herein, has filed a suit before the Trial Court for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint and Defendant No.2-The State of Maharashtra be directed to record the suit property in the name of the Petitioner in revenue records and accordingly, 7/12 extracts of the suit property be issued in his name. A consequential relief of injunction was also sought restraining Defendant No.1-The Union of India from disturbing his possession in the suit property without following due process of law. The relevant relief which was sought in the plaint was of the declaration, that, notice dated 24th May 2013 issued by Defendant No.1(b)-The Deputy Salt Commissioner, be declared as illegal, arbitrary, without authority and same may be quashed and set-aside; accordingly, Defendant No.1 be restrained from continuing the enquiry started under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Public Premises Act”).
4. As per the case of the Respondent, he is carrying on business of salt manufacturing on his own land, under 49 salt pans (or 98 tukdas). Those rights over the salt pans on the land bearing Survey No.17/2 situated at village Wadkhal, Taluka Pen, District Raigad, had been purchased by his predecessor in title Shri Shamdas Teomal Chainani and Shri Teomal L. Chainani from the Government of India through public auction during the year 1957-58 for the purchase price of Rs.31,000/- (Rs. Thirty One Thousand only). The Government of India has accordingly issued “Sale Certificate” of the said land in the name of the Respondent's predecessor in title Shri Shamdas Teomal Chainani and Shri Teomal L. Chainani. After the death of Shri Teomal L. Chainani, Shri Shamdas Teomal Chainani inherited all the rights over the suit property. Shri Shamdas Teomal Chainani then relinquished all his rights in the property in favour of Shri Waman Anant Prabhudesai (5/6th share) and the present Respondent - Laxman Yadneshwar Sathe (1/6th share). After the death of Shri Waman Anant Prabhudesai, his legal heirs have relinquished all their rights in the suit property in favour of the Respondent. Thus, he has acquired the possession of the suit property in absolute ownership from his predecessors in title by way of relinquishment deed executed before the Tahsildar, Pen. The relinquishment deed however could not be registered as the Salt Department has stopped maintaining the Jaminkharda Register or Land Register.
5. According to the Respondent, therefore, the notice bearing No.S-11011(42)Salt/2013/2652 dated 24th May 2013 issued by Petitioner-The Deputy Salt Commissioner, under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, 1971, cannot be called as legal and valid having regard to his possession in the suit property as lawful owner thereof. The Respondent therefore sought the above said reliefs restraining mainly the Petitioner from taking any action in pursuance of the said notice, namely, continuance of the enquiry under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and also for declaring him as owner of the suit property and for that purpose entering his name in the revenue record as owner of the said property.
6. On appearance, the Petitioner, herein, not only resisted the suit by filing written statement but also by raising a specific “Preliminary Issue” relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain th
