The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be null and void only because notice was not issued to the plaintiff, and the suit itself was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the respective Counsel. Substantive questions of law in the present Second Appeal are as follows :

(1) Whether the acquisition of property under the Land Acquisition Act could be said to be vitiated for failure to give notice to a purchaser, whose name was not reflected in the Revenue records?

(2) Whether a Civil Suit challenging the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable?

2. The facts of the case are as follows :

On 15th April, 1982 the plaintiff i.e. present respondents had filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the acquisition of the land Gat No. 19 situated at Mouje Shepawadi, Taluka Gaganbawada, District Kolhapur and award passed on 16/11/1978, and acquiring the suit land is illegal on the ground that no notice was served upon the Plaintiff although he is a purchaser of the said property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27/1/1975. It is contended in the plaint that the Plaintiff had received a notice of encroachment sent by the Collector dated 1/7/1981 and therefore, he was constrained to file suit seeking declaration as a owner of the suit property. The plaintiff had also prayed for perpetual injunction.

3. It is admitted that on 27/1/1975 the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Mr. Raghunath Baba Bhat Dhavalikar, who happens to be the defendant No. 4 in RCS No. 372 of 1982. That Raghunath Dhavalikar was shown as a kabjedar (person residing in or using a property as its owner) and therefore, notice was issued to the defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 had not filed any written statement. He had received the compensation by virtue of the award that was passed on 16/11/1978 and the defendant No. 4 had received compensation towards acquisition of the said land. It was a matter of record that defendant No. 4 had earlier purchased the said property by a registered sale deed and had sold the property to the plaintiff.

4. It is pertinent to note, that the name of the plaintiff was not entered into the revenue record till January, 1980. The entry No. 365 in the mutation record was taken on 3/1/1980 i.e. practically after more than one and half year of passing of award of acquisition by the State Government.

5. The plaintiff had also contended that the acquisition is illegal on the ground that there is non-compliance of section 22a of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 as there was a specific bar to acquire a land which was less than 12 Hectors. Principally the acquisition was challenged on the ground that no notice was served upon the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff had not issued any notice to the State Government under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

7. The first Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no reason for the Government authorities to know that title has devolved upon the plaintiff by virtue of a sale deed dated 27/1/1975 since the Government had perused the revenue record and had issued notice to the person who was in possession of the said land at the time of issuance of notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is neither the case of the plaintiff that upon receiving notice of encroachment, he had approached the authorities and had submitted that the title and the interest in the property had devolved upon him by virtue of the sale deed.

8. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur in his Judgment dated 2nd March, 1988 had also observed that there is no claim in this suit as against defendant No. 4, who had, in fact, received the compensation from the Government, without bringing it to the notice of the Government, that he had sold the said property to the plaintiff.

9. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 2nd March, 1988 the plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 271 of 1988 before the District Judge at Kolhapur. The learned Appellate Court observed that the Judgment of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur deserves to be set aside on the ground that illegal and undue weightage w