Bombay High Court
Waman S/O Dattuji Malekar And ... vs Vishwanath S/O Karnuji Sontakke ... on 28 September, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2314 OF 2021
PETITIONERS: 1] Shri Waman s/o Dattuji Malekar, aged
about 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Dorli, Post-Kural, Tah. Wani,
Dist. Yawatmal
2] Shri Shantaram s/o Atmaram Khandalkar
aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Mungoli, Post- Sakhara, Tah. Wani,
Dist. Yawatmal
3] Shankar s/o Dadaji Sapat, aged
about 58 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Dhoptala Colony (Sasti), Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
4] Shivaji s/o Latari Gaurkar, aged
about 37 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Wirar (Gade), Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur.
5] Pravin s/o Latari Wadaskar, aged
about 44 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Antargaon, Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur
6] Subhash s/o Mahadeo Wandre, aged
about 50years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Arvi, Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
7] Madhukar s/o Mahadeo Wandre, aged
about 44 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Arvi, Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 04:13:30 :::
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
2
8] Bhalchandra s/o Bapuji Dahule, aged
about 38 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Pancharpauni, Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
9] Indubai w/o Shankar Sapat, aged
about 39 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Dhoptala Colony (Sasti), Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
10] Pravin s/o Ramchandra Gaurkar, aged
about 30 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Wirar (Gade), Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT: 1] Vishwanath s/o Karnuji Sontakke,
aged about 81 years, Occ. Retired
R/o. Saibaba Ward, Himgiri Apartment,
Civil Lines, Chandrapur
2] Western Coal Fields Ltd., through its
Area General Manager, Wani Area,
At Urja Gram Tadali, Post Tadali,
Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur,
3] Latari s/o Jitra Gaurkar, aged about
68 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
4] Ramchandra s/o Jitra Gaurkar, aged
about 63 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
Both Nos. 3 and 4 R/o. Wirur (Gadegaon)
Tah. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur
AND
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 04:13:30 :::
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
3
WRIT PETITION NO. 3736 OF 2021
PETITIONERS: 1] Latari s/o Jitra Gaurkar, aged about
68 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
4] Ramchandra s/o Jitra Gaurkar, aged
about 63 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
Both Nos. 1 and 2 R/o. Wirur (Gadegaon)
Tah. Kurparu, Dist. Chandrapur
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT: 1] Vishwanath s/o Karnuji Sontakke,
aged about 81 years, Occ. Retired
R/o. Saibaba Ward, Himgiri Apartment,
Civil Lines, Chandrapur
2] Western Coal Fields Ltd., through its
Area General Manager, Wani Area,
At Urja Gram Tadali, Post Tadali,
Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur,
3] Shri Waman s/o Dattul Malekar, aged
about 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Dorli, Post-Kural, Tah. Wani,
Dist. Yawatmal
4] Shri Shantaram s/o Atmaram Khandalkar
aged about 46 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Mungoli, Post- Sakhara, Tah. Wani,
Dist. Yawatmal
5] Shankar s/o Dadaji Sapat, aged
about 58 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Dhoptala Colony (Sasti), Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 04:13:30 :::
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
4
6] Shivaji s/o Latari Gaurkar, aged
about 37 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Wirar (Gade), Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur.
7] Pravin s/o Latari Wadaskar, aged
about 44 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Antargaon, Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur
8] Subhash s/o Mahadeo Wandre, aged
about 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Arvi, Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
9] Madhukar s/o Mahadeo Wandre, aged
about 44 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Arvi, Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
10] Bhalchandra s/o Bapuji Dahule, aged
about 38 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Pancharpauni, Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
11] Indubai w/o Shankar Sapat, aged
about 39 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Dhoptala Colony (Sasti), Tah. Rajura,
Dist. Chandrapur
12] Pravin s/o Ramchandra Gaurkar, aged
about 30 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Wirar (Gade), Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.R.Bhishikar, Advocate for Petitioner in WP No.2314/2021 and for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 12 in WP No.3736/2021.
Shri A.A.Naik for Respondent No.1 in WP No.2314/2021 and WP
No.3736/2021.
Shri R.Masurkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in WP No.2314/2021
and for petitioners in WP No.3736/2021.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 04:13:30 :::
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
5
Smt. M.Munshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in WP No.2314/2021 and WP
No.3736/2021.
Shri P.R.Parsodkar, Advocate for intervenor in WP No.2314/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 28/09/2021.
[Common Judgment]
1] Heard Shri N.R.Bhishikar, learned counsel for Petitioner
in WP No.2314/2021 and for Respondents Nos. 3 to 12 in WP
No.3736/2021; Shri A.A.Naik, learned counsel for Respondent No.1
in WP No.2314/2021 and WP No.3736/2021; Shri R.Masurkar,
learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in WP No.2314/2021
and for petitioners in WP No.3736/2021; Smt. M.Munshi, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2 in WP No.2314/2021 and WP
No.3736/2021 and Shri P.R.Parsodkar, learned counsel for intervenor
in WP No.2314/2021.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3] The order dated 21.6.2021 passed by the learned
Special Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short "the Act of
1957" hereinafter), is challenged in the present petitions, whereby
the application for stay of the proceedings was rejected.
4] Mr. Bhishikar, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1957 does not
have the power to decide the title dispute between the parties. The
limited jurisdiction which is granted under Section 14 of the said Act
of 1957 is to determine the quantum of compensation and specify
the persons to whom the compensation shall be paid. In the instant
matters, since the dispute already stood pending before the Civil
Court, in Regular Civil Suit No. 30/2019 (Vishwanath vrs. Latari),
an application came to be filed for stay of the proceedings, which
has been rejected. While rejecting the same, he submits that, the
learned Tribunal rendered a finding that the Tribunal would have
jurisdiction to determine who is a real owner entitled to the
compensation and consequently the title to the property, which
finding, according to him, cannot be sustained and therefore, the
impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and the
application for stay needs to be allowed.
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
5] Mr. Masurkar, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 supports the submissions of Mr. Bhishikar,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
6] Mr. Naik, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits
that the Tribunal may have jurisdiction to decide the title, for which
he places reliance upon language of Section 14 (5) & (6) of the Act
of 1957, which empowers the Tribunal, according to him, to even go
into the question of a title, while deciding the person to whom
compensation is to be paid, in case of a dispute, as otherwise, it
would become impossible for the Tribunal to follow the mandate as
conferred upon it by virtue of Section 14(5). He further submits that
sub-section (6) of Section 14 even empowers the Tribunal, to take
such a decision even when there is a dispute as to the person or
persons entitled for compensation. Relying upon the provisions of
sub-section (8) of Section 14, which confers powers of the Civil
Court upon the Tribunal and Section 17(2) as well as the second
proviso thereto, he submits that the Tribunal would have the
authority to go into a title dispute. Further placing reliance upon
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
Section 26, he submits that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has
been barred, to the extent as indicated therein and therefore, since
the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine who is entitled for
compensation, it would logically mean that the Tribunal would also
have the right to determine the title to the property. Mr. Naik,
learned counsel further fairly points out the decision of this court as
rendered in Sandip Ramesh Dakhare vrs. Mrs. Suchita Bala Gore
and ors, 2020 (1) ALL MR 551, which holds contrary to his
argument. He also relies upon Kishor Chintaman Bodhe vrs. Special
Tribunal and ors, in WP 4935/2017, dated 11.9.18, to contend that
the proceedings for compensation cannot be stayed, even if the issue
of title is pending in the Civil Court, as interim order could be
obtained from the Civil Court.
7] Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel appears for Respondent
No.2. Mr. Parsodkar, learned counsel appearing for intervenor
support the contention of Mr. Naik, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1.
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
8] The Act of 1957, was brought into effect for the purpose
of acquisition of coal bearing land, as indicated by Section 9 and the
matters related thereto, as well as for determining the quantum of
compensation; the persons entitled thereto and the apportionment.
9] The language of Section 17 (2) of the said Act of 1957
indicates three situations, where the Tribunal would have the power;
(i) sufficiency about the amount of compensation; (ii) the title to
receive it & (iii) the apportionment thereof.
10] The language of Section 14 (5) of the said Act of 1957
indicates that in deciding the dispute and making an award, the
Tribunal has to specify the person or persons to whom the
compensation has to be paid, and in case there is a dispute as to the
same and the Tribunal finds that more than one person is entitled to
the compensation, it has also to determine the apportionment
regarding the amount. The entitlement of the Tribunal to determine
the amount of compensation or the person to whom it is to be paid
would not mean that the Tribunal would have the power and
authority to determine the title of the property. Though powers
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
under the CPC have been conferred upon the Tribunal under Section
14(8), they are limited in nature, restricted to the collecting of
evidence and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, for the purpose
of determining the compensation and the persons to whom prima
faciely it would become payable. The conferment of the above
powers of the Civil Court upon the Tribunal are limited to above
extent and not otherwise. They do not empower the Tribunal to
enter into a controversy, whereby the dispute raised as to the title of
the property could be determined by the Tribunal. The expression
"or the title to receive it" as occurring in Section 17(2) of the said Act
of 1957, has to be read in consonance with the empowerment of the
Tribunal as contained in Section 14 (5) & (6) of the said Act of 1957
and cannot be construed to mean the conferment of a right upon the
Tribunal to determine the title to the property. It is to be noted that
the Act does not constitute the Tribunal as Civil Court, nor does it
make the determination by the Tribunal a decree to be binding upon
the parties, in case dispute is raised before it.
11] The second proviso to Section 17(2) would also
necessarily mean the determination regarding the quantum of
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
apportionment in respect of a person who claims to be interested
and not otherwise.
12] The bar under Section 26 is not an absolute bar, but a
bar limited to the actions taken by the Tribunal under the Act.
13] The position as regards the power of the Tribunal, to
determine a title dispute has been considered by this Court in Sandip
Ramesh Dakhare (supra) and it has been held that the Tribunal
would not have a right to determine the title, which could only be
determined by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, with which
I respectfully concur. It would therefore be necessary to state that
the Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957,
would not have the power or authority to go into the aspect of title
to the property, if the same arises before it. That being the position,
the impugned order which holds that the Tribunal has such a power
cannot be sustained and therefore, is required to be quashed and set
aside.
14] It is an admitted position that the proceedings regarding
possession of the property is pending before the Civil Court in
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
Regular Civil Suit No. 30/2019, which necessary would involve the
issue as to the title and the decision by the said Court would be
binding upon the parties as well as the Tribunal.
15] The issue regarding the proceedings to be permitted to
be gone ahead, pending such determination, has to be considered in
light of the above position as to whether any dispute has remained
as to the quantum of compensation to be determined by the
Tribunal. Mr. Naik, learned counsel submits that a claim for
enhancement of compensation, has been made by Respondent No.1
in the proceedings under Section 14, which is pending before the
Tribunal, which shall have to be permitted to be decided, leaving the
question of apportionment thereto subject to the decision of the Civil
Court in the suit pending before the Civil Court. In my considered
opinion, such a course of action, would not prejudice the petitioner,
as in case the petitioners are held to have title to the land, they
would equally be entitled to the enhanced compensation, in case the
same is granted by the Tribunal, and such a course of action is
equally contemplated in Kishor Chintaman Bodhe (supra) relied
upon by Mr.Naik, learned counsel for some of the respondents.
wp2314.21+3736.21.odt
16] The petitions are therefore allowed. The impugned
order dated 21.06.2021 (18.06.2021) is quashed and set aside. The
proceedings before the Tribunal shall go on in respect of the question
of enhancement of the compensation. However in so far as the
determination of the entitlement of the person to receive the same is
concerned, the same shall be subject to result of Regular Civil Suit
No. 30/2019 (old Civil Suit No. 87/2009). Needless to say that in
case any request is made before the Court having sessin of Regular
Civil Suit No. 30/2019, considering that the same is pending since
2009, the said request shall be considered appropriately and the suit
shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
