SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6568

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ
BABASO PANDURANG KARAALE AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
SHANTINATH DADA CHOGULE SINCE DEC THR HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS – Respondent
IA/680/2023



Advocates:
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe with Mr. Mayank Tripathi for Petitioner. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for State. Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.4a & 4b and Applicant in IA 680/2023.

Possession must remain with the landowner for an application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to be maintainable; mortgaged land cannot be included in total holdings for acquisition.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48(1) - Withdrawal from acquisition - The Commissioner has no power to withdraw land from acquisition once possession is vested in the Government. The petitioner maintained possession of the land, and the Divisional Commissioner failed to consider this in rejecting the application under Section 48(1). (Paras 1, 29, 41)

(B) Jurisdictional Requirement - The court emphasized that possession must remain with the landowner for an application under Section 48(1) to be maintainable. The Divisional Commissioner overlooked this requirement, leading to an erroneous conclusion. (Paras 27, 30)

(C) Legal Consequences of Mortgage - The court ruled that mortgaged land cannot be included in the total holding for acquisition purposes, as ownership does not transfer until the mortgage is redeemed. (Paras 30, 41)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the acquisition of land, asserting that possession was never taken by the State, and the land was incorrectly included in the acquisition due to a mortgage. The project affected person had died, and her heirs attempted to sell the land back to the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Divisional Commissioner acted without proper consideration of the law regarding possession and mortgage, leading to an illegal acquisition.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner maintained possession of the land and whether the Divisional Commissioner correctly applied the law regarding the mortgage.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Divisional Commissioner failed to apply the law correctly regarding possession and the implications of mortgage, rendering the acquisition illegal.

Result: The petition was allowed, and the acquisition was declared illegal.

ORDER

1) Acquisition process has been completed and possession has been vested in the Government. The Land has been allotted to the Project Affected Person in the year 1997 itself. As per the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the Commissioner has no powers to withdraw any land from the acquisition process.

2) In this matter, as per the entries of the survey of crops made in the 7/12 extract and the panchanama dated 31.03.2004 drawn up by the Circle Officer, District Rehabilitation Office, Sangli, the Applicant has his house and a tin-sheet shed situated in the area admeasuring 0.02 hectares. Hence, the possession of the said land shall be given to the Project Affected person by confirming the boundary marks thereof and by withdrawing the said area from acquisition process. Further, the District Rehabilitation Officer, Sangli shall take steps to acquire from the Applicant, a continuous area admeasuring 0 hectare, 2 Are situated adjacent to the area suitable for acquisition, in lieu of the said area withdrawn from the acquisition process.

Signature/-XXX (Dr. Nitin Karir)

Page 8 of 45 Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.

The Seal of the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.

To, 1) Late Shantinath Dada Chougule, since deceased, through heir Shri Ashok Shantinath Chougule, R/at Ashta, Tal. Walwa, District Sangli.

Copy for Information and for taking steps :-

1) District Rehabilitation Officer, Sangli.

2) Special Land Acquisition Officer No.11, Sangli.

(Signature Illegible) For Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.

True Copy, (Signature Illegible)

Advocate.”

10. It is on the aforesaid premise, the present petition is filed praying for the reliefs as noted by us hereinabove.

11. At the time when this petition was filed, the jurisdiction to entertain and hear such petition was vested with the learned Single Judge. On 6 January 2009, the learned Single Judge passed the following order on this petition inter alia directing the parties to maintain status quo while adjourning the proceedings:- “ The petitioner is directed to implead the affected person viz. Smt.Banubai Dnyanu Kumbhar as party-respondent in the petition and serve copy of petition on newly added respondent.

Amendment to be carried out within one week from today.

Stand over for two weeks.

In the meantime, parties to maintain status-quo.”

Page 9 of 45 Thereafter, the proceedings were transferred to be heard by the Division Bench. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court while admitting the petition on 22 April, 2013 passed the following order:

“ Time is sought on behalf of the State Government to comply with the order dated 28th March 2013. Though the petition is pending from the year 2008, till today, there is no reply filed.

2. Rule. The learned AGP waives service for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7.

3. Rule on interim relief is made returnable on 12th July 2013. By way of ad-interim relief, we direct that the status quo, as of today, shall be maintained in respect of the possession of the land in dispute.”

12. The proceedings since had remained pending, however, as the added respondents having filed an interim application, the proceedings were moved before us. Accordingly, the proceedings were listed before us on 29 August 2024 when we had extensively heard learned Counsel for the parties, however, considering the fact that the petition was admitted for final hearing and a short issue was involved, we thought it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings to 30 August 2024 so that the parties can be heard finally and the petition can be closed for judgment to be delivered. The order dated 29 August 2024 reads thus: “1. As this petition is admitted for final hearing and as the issue involved is a short issue, we list the petition tomorrow on the Supplementary Board. Page 10 of 45

2. Parties are put to notice that the petition would be taken up and finally disposed of.

3. We have spent considerable time on this petition. Today we have also examined the documents. What we require is further argu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top