Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 2650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
Vinayak Padmanabh - Appellant
Versus
Vishnudas Dattatray - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 59 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
A.D. Bhobe, Advocate, S. Shaikh, Advocate, J.E. Coelho Pereira, Advocate, V. Braganza, Advocate, S. Rivankar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the District Court in land acquisition references is strictly limited to the parties involved before the Collector, and new claims or parties cannot be introduced in the proceedings.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION - Land Acquisition Act, Sec. 30 - The court discussed the restricted jurisdiction of the District Court under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing that only parties involved before the Collector can be included in the reference proceedings. The court interpreted previous rulings to assert that new claims or parties not present in the original proceedings cannot be added, thereby influencing the decision to dismiss the petition for amendment and impleadment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the apportionment of compensation for land acquired for the construction of the Ponda Bypass Road. Vinayak Padmanabh Shinkre claimed ownership of the land, asserting it was inherited from his ancestors. After his death, his legal representatives sought to amend the claim and include additional parties who were not present during the original proceedings before the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional petitioners (nos. 2 to 7) were not parties to the original proceedings before the Collector and thus could not be added to the reference case. The court upheld the principle that the District Court's jurisdiction is limited to the terms of reference and cannot entertain new disputes or parties not previously involved.
Issues: Whether the Reference Court can exceed its jurisdiction under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to include parties who were not claimants before the Collector.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that only those who were parties to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer can be included in the reference proceedings. New claims or parties not previously involved cannot be added, as this would exceed the restricted jurisdiction of the District Court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs, and the order of the Reference Court refusing to implead the additional petitioners was upheld.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. In brief facts of the case are as follows, In the Land Acquisition Case no.43 of 1996, the Deputy Collector (SDO) Ponda, vide order dtd. 12/12/1995, referred the dispute between, the "parties interested", as to the apportionment of the compensation to the District Judge, under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Parties interested were, Shri Vishnudas Dattatray Sadhale/respondent no.1 herein and Shri Vinayak Padmanabh Shinkre.
3. Shri Vinayak P. Shinkre, filed a statement of claim on 25/6/2000, through his duly constituted attorney Shri Audumber Jagannath Shinkre. Claim was to the following effect.
<WXY>1 That, a portion admeasuring 9050 sq. metres of the property called "Varcondem" or "Booreachem Bhat", situated in the village Queula of Taluka Ponda-Goa, surveyed under No. 31/1 was acquired for the construction of Ponda Bypass Road.
2 As a head of the "Shinkre, a joint Hindu Family", he was, the owner, in possession of the said above mentioned property surveyed under No. 31/1 having inherited the same from his ancestors, and his name has been rightly entered in the I and XIV form of the said survey number as occupant thereof.
3 In the Taluka Revenue Office at Ponda, the said property is registered under Matriz No. 859 in the name of Cashinath Porob Sincro who was his ancestor.
5 On the death of Caxinata Sincro in inventory proceedings Civil Court Ponda alloted subject land to Smt. Essodabai Porob Sincro, widow of Caxinath Sincro and it was finally approved by order dtd. 12/3/1931. The said property is at Sr. No. 3 of the list of assets in the inventory.</WXY>
4. Be that as it may, pending reference, Vinayak Shinkre expired and his legal representatives namely, his widow( petitioner no.1(a)); son Hemant Shinkre (petitioner 1(b)); Shyam Shinkre (petitioner 1(d)); and their spouses 1(c) and 1(e) were brought on record.
5. Thus, Vinayak Shinkre, claimed that the acquired land was owned and possessed by him, since the time of his ancestors and his name has been rightly entered in the Form I and XIV, as occupant thereof.
6. Pending reference, Dr. Pradip Vishnu Shinkre, as a constituted attorney of the petitioners, 1(a) to 1(e) moved an application in the subject Reference Case, seeking leave to amend the statement of claim made by, Vinayak Padmanabh Shinkre in the following terms;
<WXY>1 The land surveyed under No. 31/1, acquired for construction of Ponda Bypass road was continuously, openly, publicly and peacefully possessed and enjoyed by his predecessor-in-title, Kashinath Shinkre as its legal owner. Upon the death of Kashinath Shinkre, one half of the said property was allotted to Essodibai Shinkre, on account of her moiety in the Inventory Proceedings before the Court of Civil Judge, Ponda. Kashinath Shinkre and Essodibai Shinkre were survived by son, Vishnu Kashinath Shinkre and his wife Krishnabai Vishnu Shinkre. Dr. Pradip Vishnu Sincro, Dr. Neelam Pradip Sincro, Shri Ajit Vishnu Sincro and Smt. Yeshoda Ajit Sincro, (eventually, petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) who are the children/legal representatives of, Vishnu Kashinath Shinkre, and as such, the land surveyed under No. 31/1 was legally owned, possessed by them peacefully and publicly, without any interference and/or obstruction.
2 The family of Shinkre being joint family, Vinayak Padmanabh Shinkre (original claimant) and other members of joint family of Shinkre were assisting Vishnu Kashinath Shinkre to look after and maintain the acquired property and all other properties of Shinkre.
3 The name of, Vinayak Padmanabh Shinkre has been inadvertently recorded in the survey records and it continued, as there was no clash of interest of said Vinayak Shinkre and that of Vishnu Kashinath Shinkre or the legal representatives of said late Vishnu Shinkre.
(emphasis supplied)
4 The right and interest of said Vinayak Padmanabh Shinkre was restricted to his house and
