Dileep S/O Balkrishna Nevtia And ... vs The Deputy Collector, Land ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16255 Bom

  Judgment                               1                  Writ Pet.No.1911.2020.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1911 OF 2020


 1)       Dileep S/o Balkrishna Nevatia,
          Aged 70 years, Occu: Business,
          R/o. 5-A, Shashi Deep, Worli Sea Face,
          Mumbai 400 030.

 2)       Sunita W/o Dileep Nevatia,
          Aged 68 years, Occu: Business,
          R/o. 5-A, Shashi Deep, Worli Sea Face,
          Mumbai 400 030.
                                                          .... PETITIONERS

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       The Deputy Collector
          Land Acquisition (General),
          Collector's Office Complex,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

 2)       Sheetal Deshmukh,
          Deputy Collector,
          Land Acquisition (General),
          Collector's Office Complex,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

 3)       Vijaya Bankar,
          Deputy Collector,
          Land Acquisition (General),
          Collector's Office Complex,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

 4)       The Collector, Nagpur,
          Collector's Office Complex,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

 5)       Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
          through the Municipal Commissioner,
          Mahanagar Palika Marg,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.




::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 03:02:05 :::
   Judgment                                   2                   Writ Pet.No.1911.2020.odt



 6)       The State of Maharashtra,
          through Secretary, Urban Development
          Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

 7)       Kapil S/o. Mukund Sutaria,
          Flat No.13, Laxmi Apartment,
          164, Ravindranath Tagore Marg,
          Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.

 8)       Kavita W/o. Shailendra Nath,
          Bunglow No.58, Mall Road,
          Kamptee Cantonment,
          Nagpur - 441 001.

 9)       Sonal W/o. Anuj Mehra,
          501, Ashishwang C.H.S.,
          Pochkhanawalla Road,
          Worli, Mumbai 400 030.

 10)      Nisha W/o. Bret Shoup,
          17, Shivtirth No.1,
          Bhulabhai Desai Road,
          Mumbai 400 026.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri R. L. Khapre, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R. P. Joshi,
      Advocate for the petitioners.
      Shri S. M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for respondent
      Nos.1, 4 & 6.
      Shri R. M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent No.7.
      Shri P. P. Kothari, Advocate for respondent No.8, 9 & 10.
 ______________________________________________________________


                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED : 24.11.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 3 Writ Pet.No.1911.2020.odt

2. Basically the dispute involved in this petition is in respect

of right to receive the compensation which has already been

determined by passing an award dated 09.09.2019. It has been the

contention of the petitioners that there being the transfer of their land

before Section 4 Notification was issued, they are entitled to receive

the compensation of the land, which was compulsorily acquired by

respondent No.1 for a public purpose, which contention had been

disputed by respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 so far. However, now during

the pendency of the petition, this dispute has been amicably settled by

the contesting parties and they have accordingly incorporated their

terms of settlement in a written Memorandum of Settlement which has

been placed on record.

3. We have gone through the Memorandum of Settlement,

which has been already marked as document 'A' for identification. It has

been entered into between the parties on 23 rd November, 2021 at

Nagpur. It has been signed for the petitioners by duly constituted Power

of Attorney Mr. Subodh Vishwanath Joshi, while it has been signed for

respondent Nos.9 and 10 by their duly constituted Power of Attorney

Mr. Ajay Surinder Chohan.

4. When this matter came up for hearing yesterday, we made

inquiry with both these Power of Attorneys and also respondent Nos.7

Judgment 4 Writ Pet.No.1911.2020.odt

and 8, who were personally present before the Court. Upon such

enquiry, we were satisfied that the terms of settlement have been

voluntarily entered into between the parties without being influenced

by any factor. We were also satisfied that the parties were agreeable to

the terms of settlement. However, in order to be more cautious, we

decided to have interaction also with the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and

respondent Nos.9 and 10 through virtual mode, to remove any doubts,

if any, regarding the voluntary nature of settlement. Accordingly, these

parties virtually appeared before this Court just now and after inquiry

with them, this Court is satisfied that the terms of settlement vide

document 'A' have been entered into by the parties voluntarily and that

the contesting parties do not have any objection if they are acted upon

and given effect to accordingly.

5. At this stage, Shri S. M. Ukey, learned Additional

Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6 takes an exception

to give effect to the terms of settlement on two grounds. Firstly, the

registration of the sale-deed has been done long after the date of

issuance of declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 and it is settled law that such sale-deed cannot be taken into

consideration for determining the amount of compensation payable

over acquisition of the lands. The second ground of objection is that

since reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is

Judgment 5 Writ Pet.No.1911.2020.odt

already pending, which is about apportionment of the amount of

compensation determined in the present case, the terms of settlement

can be placed before the reference Court and reference Court would

have the jurisdiction to take an appropriate decision thereupon.

6. So far as the second ground of objection is concerned, we

must say that although it is possible for the parties to appear before the

reference Court and seek its order as regard the terms of settlement,

there is nothing in law which should prevent this Court from

entertaining the request of the parties to consider the terms of

settlement and pass appropriate order thereupon. Relegating parties to

such alternate remedy, in a petition filed in the year 2020 and which

relates to dispute which has been raging between the parties since the

year 2000, would only cause further delay to what is likely to happen

in respect of the terms of settlement. Therefore, we do not think it

necessary to direct the parties to appear before the reference Court in

this case.

7. As regards the first objection, we must say that the

objection could have been considered and even accepted by this Court

had it been the case that the alienation of the land had taken place

after Section 4 declaration was published. In the present case, the

alienation of the land had taken place on 28.06.1995, may be by

Judgment 6 Writ Pet.No.1911.2020.odt

unregistered document but, such alienation has got its validity when

the unregistered sale-deed was got registered in the year 2015. As per

Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 such subsequent registration

of the unregistered document of transfer of immovable property under

the provisions of the Registration Act relates to the date of execution of

the document witnessing transfer of ownership of the immovable

property. Considering this provision of law, we find that the alienation

of the land which had taken place by unregistered document in the

year 1995, has got its validity by such retrospective effect and

therefore, it has to be said that the alienation or the transfer of the land

had taken place well before Section 4 declaration was published.

Besides, the alienation of the land which has been made in the present

case could not have been said to have been done with any oblique

motive for obtaining enhanced compensation or artificially increasing

the price of the land so as to influence the decision of the Land

Acquisition Officer while determining the true value of the lands under

acquisition. Therefore, we find no substance in the objection taken by

the learned Additional Government Pleader.

8. In view of above, this petition deserves to be allowed and it

is allowed in terms of settlement vide document 'A'. The payment of

compensation be made in terms of the settlement vide document 'A',

within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The order of

Judgment 7 Writ Pet.No.1911.2020.odt

reference Court dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure 'O'), is hereby quashed

and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

            (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)              (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)


 Kirtak