Bombay High Court
Shri Dattatraya Sansthan Shikhar Mahur ... vs Sub Divisional Officer And Competent ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2024:BHC-NAG:1335
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5702/2019
5
PETITIONER Shri Dattatraya Sansthan Shikhar Mahur At
Shikhar Mandir, Mahur, Taluka Mahur,
District Nanded, through its Secretary Shri
Ganesh Tukaram Patil.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS 1. Sub Divisional Officer and Competent
Authority of Land Acquisition, National
Highway No.361, Yavatmal, District
Yavatmal.
2. Nilkanth s/o Motiram Nilawar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
3. Abdul Raheman s/o Abdul Gafoor
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
4. Mohd. Sayed s/o Mohd. Yasin
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
5. Suresh s/o Ramrao Pilawan
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
6. Ashok s/o Maroti Gundewar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
7. Avinash s/o Ramdas Nilawar,
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
8. Ramrao s/o Anandrao Ingole
Aged :Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
9. Dattaji s/o Nemaji Buchewar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
2
10. Murlidhar s/o Kisanrao Ingole
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
11. Swati Pradeep Nilawar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
12. Vilas s/o Yashwantrao Nilawar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
13. Mohd. Rafique s/o Mohd. Yusuf Khatik
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
14. Atish s/o Prabhakar Tayade
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
15. Amol s/o Prabhakar Tayade
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
16. Surekha Mahadeo Karale
Aged : Adult. Occ. Cultivator.
Nos.2 to 16, all R/o Village Kolwan,
Tah. Arni, District - Yavatmal.
17. Project Director,
National Highway Authority of India,
Implementation Unit Yavatmal, Plot No.43,
Chandan Niwas, Kolhe Layout Part-II,
Darwha Road, Yavatmal - 445 001.
(Added Respondent no.17 vide Court's order
dt. 27.2.20)
(Amended as per Court's order dt.
27.02.2020)
Mr. R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. S.U. Nemade, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1/State
Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. P.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for
respondent nos.2 to 16
Mr. A.A. Kathane, Advocate for respondent no.17
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
3
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5817/2019
5
PETITIONER Shri Dattatraya Sansthan Shikhar Mahur At
Shikhar Mandir, Mahur, Taluka Mahur,
District Nanded, through its Secretary Shri
Ganesh Tukaram Patil.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS 1. Sub Divisional Officer and Competent
Authority of Land Acquisition, National
Highway No.361, Yavatmal, District
Yavatmal.
2. Gajanan Rambhau Kanchalwar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
3. Smt. Vimal Subhash Lad
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
4. Sunil s/o Subhash Lad
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
5. Vasant Chandrabhan Lad
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
6. Shobhagchand s/o Shivraj Bora
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
7. Smt. Ahemadabi Rahup Bhatnase
Aged : Adult, Occ. Culativator.
8. Dilip s/o Rambhau Lonsane
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
9. Anil s/o Rambhau Lonsane
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
10. Gajanan s/o Shriram Keshaowar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
4
11. Manohar s/o Shriram Keshaowar,
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
12. Arjun s/o Domaji Katpalliwa,
Aged : Adult. Occ. Cultivator.
13. Shankar s/o Namdeo Marbate
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
14. Anil s/o Dadarao Shelar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
15. Baba Kambalposh Dargah through its
representative/trustee Mastan Baig Hasan
Baig Mirza, Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
Baba Kambalposh Dargah, Through its
Secretary Resident of Arni, Tah. Arni,
Dist. Yavatmal.
(Amendment carried out as per Hon'ble
Court's order dated 24.1.2020)
16. Motiram s/o Kaniram Banginwar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
17. Parvatabai Arjun Katpalliwar,
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator
(Late) Parvatabai Arjun Katpalliwar
Since dead through her legal heirs.
(17-i) Rajendra s/o Arjun Katpalliwar
(17-ii) Sanjay s/o Arjunrao Katpalliwar
(17-iii) Shilpa Suhas Udakwad
(17-iv) Asha w/o Narayan Chalpilwar
All above respondents 17-i to 17-iv are
residents of Arni, Tah. Arni, Dist. Yavatmal.
(Amendment carried out as per Hon'ble
Court's order dated 24.01.2020)
(Added bringing Legal Heirs of respondent
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
5
No.17 vide Court's order Dt.24.1.20.)
18. Laxmikant Yashwantrao Nilawar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
19. Jatin s/o Jayant Nile
being minor through his natural guardian
father Jayant Vasant Nile, Aged : Adult,
Occ. Cultivator.
20. Rashmi Akshay Nilawar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
21. Namdeo s/o Banduji Mahure
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
22. Rajeev s/o Vishwanath Nilawar,
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
23. Manoj s/o Vasant Shinde,
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
24. Smt. Maya Anil Yerawar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
25. Smt. Rajnibai Ravindra Deshmukh
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
26. Priyadarshan Rajkamal Bharti,
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
27. Smt. Manjiri Kanchanrao Gosavi,
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
Nos.2 to 27 all R/o Arni, Tah. Arni,
District - Yavatmal.
28. Project Director,
National Highway Authority of India,
Implementation Unit-Yavatmal, Plot No.43,
Chandan Niwas, Kolhe Layout Part-II,
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
6
Darwha Road, Yavatmal - 445 001.
(Added respondent No.28 vide Court's order
Dt. 27.2.2020)
(Amended as per Court's order
Dt.27.02.2019)
Mr. R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. S.U. Nemade, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1/State
Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. P.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for
respondent nos.2 to 5, 7 to 14, 16, 18, 20, 23 to 27
Mr. G.R. Kothari, Advocate for respondent no.6, 15 and 17 (i to iv)
Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent nos.19, 21 and 22
Mr. A.A. Kathane, Advocate for respondent no.28
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5881/2019
5
PETITIONER Shri Dattatraya Sansthan Shikhar Mahur At
Shikhar Mandir, Mahur, Taluka Mahur,
District Nanded, through its Secretary Shri
Ganesh Tukaram Patil.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS 1. Sub Divisional Officer and Competent
Authority of Land Acquisition, National
Highway No.361, Yavatmal, District
Yavatmal.
2. Sham s/o Rambhau Kapse
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
3. Syd. Anis Syd. Lal Syd. Ashpak Syd. Lal
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
4. Prashant Madhukarrao Deshmukh
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
5. Sakhubai Babulal Rathod
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
7
6. Ganpat s/o Devisingh Rathod
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
7. Sandeep s/o Vinod Lolange
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
8. Dattatraya Vishwanath Bharati
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
9. Sheshrao s/o Deorao Garad
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
10. Amol s/o Sheshrao Garad (minor)
through his legal guardian Sheshrao Deorao
Garad
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
11. Vikas s/o Sheshrao Garad
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
12. Arifabegum Hafij Baig Mirza
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
13. Shabnam Aniz Baig Mirza
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
14. Shajid Baig Hafiz Baig Mirza
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
15. Datta s/o Tulshiram Rathod
Aged :Adult, Occ. Cultivator (Dead)
(Late) Datta s/o Tulshiram Rathod
Since dead through his legal heirs.
(15-i) Smt. Anita wd/o Datta Rathod
(15-ii) Badal s/o Datta Rathod
(15-iii) Aarti d/o Datta Rathod
(15-iv) Bharti s/o Datta Rathod
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
8
All above respondents 15-i to 15-iv are
residents of Village Sukali, Tah. Arni, Dist.
Yavatmal.
(Amendment carried out as per Hon'ble
Court's order dated 24.01.2020)
(Added bring Legal heirs of respondent
no.15 vide Court's order dt. 24.1.20)
16. Nilofarbegam Sajid Baig Mirza
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
17. Mukundraj Benimadhav Yadav
Aged : Adult. Occ. Cultivator.
18. Tarabai Benimadhav Yadav
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
19. Harinarayan Benimadhav Yadav
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
20. Smt. Parvatabai Namdeo Gundwade
Aged : Adult. Occ. Cultivator.
21. Sakharam Govinda Bhaserao
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator. (Dead)
(Late) Sakharam s/o Govinda Bhalerao
Since dead through his legal heirs.
(21-i) Raju s/o Sakharam Bhalerao
(21-ii) Kisan s/o Sakharam Bhalerao
Both above respondents 21-i to 21-ii are
residents of Arni, Tah. Arni, Dist. Yavatmal.
(Amendment carried out as per Hon'ble
Court's order dated 24.01.2020)
(Added bring Legal heirs of respondent
No.21 vide Court's order Dt. 24.1.2020).
22. Sadashiv s/o Jairam Bhaserao
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
9
23. Pratap Magasvargiya Gruha Nirman
Sanstha, Sukali, Tah. Arni, District -
Yavatmal through its
President/Administrator.
24. Damodhar Domaji Mundhe
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
25. Sheikh Sattar Sheikh Rajjak
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
26. Sanjay s/o Radhelal Jaiswal
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
27. Ganesh s/o Keshav Rathod
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
28. Sunil s/o Ram Bharati
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
29. Vilas Dubalya Jadhav
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
30. Laxmibai Ganpat Naitam
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator. (Dead)
Laxmibai Ganpat Naitam, since
deceased Through her Legal
Representatives.
i) Shri Raju Ganpat Naitam
ii) Shri Shalik Ganpat Naitam
iii) Sau. Vimalbai Sambhaji Marape
iv) Sau. Radhabai Banduji Katle
v) Sau. Renukabai Sheshrao Atram
vi) Sau. Vanitabai Vinod Madavi
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
10
vii) Sau. Manjubai Manikrao Naitam
viii) Shri Arvind Manikrao Naitam
ix) Sau. Sushma Vilas Meshram
x) Pravin Manikrao Naitam
xi) Smt. Sulabha Dipak Madavi.
All above Legal Representatives/Heirs from
(i) to (xi) are residents of At Post Lonbehal,
Tah. Arni, Dist. Yavatmal.
(Added Legal Representatives of Respondent
No.30 vide Court's Order Dt. 12.2.2020)
31. Vachchala Kshirsagar Telang
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
32. Latabai Prabhakar Mahajan
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
33. Sadhana Dadarao Dolarkar
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
34. Raju Yadaorao Umate
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
35. Hasmukh Raghejibhai Patel
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
36. Sayabai Laxman Koli
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
37. Natthuji Shiva Wastewad
Aged : Adult, Occ. Cultivator.
Nos.2 to 37 all R/o village Sukali,
Tah. Arni, District - Yavatmal.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
11
38. Project Director
National Highway Authority of India,
Implementation Unit-Yavatmal, Plot No.43,
Chandan Niwas, Kolhe Layout Part-II,
Darwha Road, Yavatmal - 445 001.
(Amended as per Court's order Dt.
27.02.2020)
(Added respondent No.38 vide Court's order
Dt. 27.2.2020)
Mr. R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. S.U. Nemade, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1/State
Mr. G.R. Kothari, Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 4, 9, 10, 12 to 14, 15 ( i) to
(iv), 16 to 19, 21 (i) and (ii), 22, 25 to 29, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 37
Mr. D.V. Thakre, Advocate for respondent no.20
Mrs. Sonali Saware - Gadhawe, Advocate for respondent no.24
Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. P.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for
respondent Nos.30 (i) to (xi) and 33
Mr. A.A. Kathane, Advocate for respondent no.38
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
Date of reserving the judgment : 03/11/2023
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 02/02/2024 5
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner-Trust, Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior 10
Counsel for the respective respondents and Mr. N.R. Patil, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1/State.
I, had on an earlier occasion heard the matter, however, the same
could not be decided. When the assignment came to me again,
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
the learned Counsels for the parties, insisted that since I, had
already heard it before I, should decide it, acceding to which
request, I have heard the matter again and so also the written
notes of arguments have also been placed on record by the
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned Counsels for the rival parties.
3. The parties have argued from Writ Petition 10
Nos.5881/2019 and 5817/2019 and therefore the page numbers
reflected in this judgment/order, would be page numbers of those
two petitions.
4. The petition challenges the impugned order dated 15
22.07.2019 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer/respondent
No.1 rejecting the objections filed by the present petitioner-Trust
under Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956
("N.H. Act, 1956" hereinafter for short), to the award passed in
favour of the respondents, holding them entitled to compensation 20
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
of the lands acquired for expansion of the Nagpur-Tuljapur
National Highway under the N.H. Act, 1956.
5. Mr. Khapre, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner-Trust submits, that the entire land in question belongs 5
to the petitioner-Trust, as the same was granted to the petitioner-
Trust by virtue of grant of the year 1810 (pg.76), which is
reflected from the order dated 08.09.1860 (pg.76) and dated
17.03.1864 (pg.79), the subsequent order dated 04.01.1937 of
the Record of Rights Officer (pg.80) which records that the lands 10
in question as indicated at page 85 were granted on behalf of the
Nizam by Raja Chandu Lal when he was the Peshkar for the
expenses of the petitioner-Trust. It is submitted, that the status of
the head of the petitioner-Trust or for that the matter, anyone
controlling the property, was not that of owner but only that of a 15
Manager or Trustee holding on behalf of the Trust or the
Deosthan, to substantiate which, reliance is placed upon State of
Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan
Samiti and another (2021) 10 SCC 222 (para 23 and 31).
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
5.1. He further submits, that since the land revenue was
not assigned, the petitioner-Trust did not become superior holder
of any alienated land as defined in Section 2(2) of the Berar Land
Revenue Code, 1928, and therefore, the land being an
unalienated land, was not affected by the Madhya Pradesh 5
Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated
Lands) Act, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as the "M.P. Abolition
Act, 1950"]. It is further contended, that the right which was
created by the original grant in favour of the Deosthan, was a
conditional right, inasmuch as, it permitted utilization of the 10
income of the lands, for the purpose of the petitioner-Trust and
did not grant any power to alienate the land. Any plea of
alienation, by the respondents therefore according to him, has to
be turned down being contrary to the terms of the original grant
and in such cases the worse case scenario would be vesting the 15
land in the State and not in the respondents.
5.2. The State under the circular dated 30.07.2010
(pg. 101), as it stood modified on 29.06.2011 (pg. 104), in such
a case was duty bound to return the land to the Deosthan. For the 20
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
efficacy of these circulars, reliance is placed upon State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (supra).
5.3. It is further submitted, that under the circular dated
30.07.2010 (pg.101), the State Government had directed 5
institution of a Committee to enquire into the illegal alienation of
the Deosthan land, as a result of which, a Committee was indeed
constituted in the instant matter to make an enquiry by the
communication dated 20.11.2012 (pg.105). Thereafter, there
appears to be a communication by the Sub Divisional Officer 10
Yavatmal dated 23.03.2015 (pg.108), which indicated that
though an exemption has been granted under Section 129 (b) of
the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region)
Act, 1958 ("BTAL Act, 1958", for short hereinafter) on
02.07.1966 in favour of the petitioner-Trust, however, all 15
alienations prior to the notification exempting the petitioner-
Trust from the provisions of the BTAL Act, 1958 should be held to
be valid. It is submitted, that thereafter a Committee has been
reconstituted by the communication dated 17.07.2017 (pg.132),
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
5.4. In the meantime, certain lands came to be acquired
by the National Highway for expansion of Nagpur-Tuljapur
National Highway, in which, lands of the petitioner-Trust, as held
by the respondents are claimed to have been acquired.
Consequent to an award being passed an objection was sought to 5
be raised under Section 3-H (4) of the N. H. Act, 1956 before the
Land Acquisition Officer seeking the compensation, which
objection, has been rejected by the impugned order dated
22.07.2019 (pg. 51 to 56), being aggrieved by which, the present
5.5. It is contented, that since the petitioner-Trust has
held unalineated land, the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950, had no effect
upon the holding of the petitioner-Trust.
5.6. It is further contended, that even otherwise the
claim by the respondents of holding the lands, which originally
belonged to the petitioner-Trust, is clearly illegal for the reasons,
that since the lands were unalienable and were only granted for
the purpose of utilizing its income for the object of the petitioner 20
-Trust, any alienations would be contrary to the terms of the
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
grant, and therefore, all subsequent actions named in respect of
such lands including those under the BTAL Act, 1958, would be
null and void and not binding upon the petitioner-Trust and so
also would not convey any legal right whatsoever upon the
5.7. It is further submitted, that the impugned order is
liable to be quashed and set aside as there is a case spelt out for
making reference to the Civil Court or in the alternative the
matter be remanded back to the Land Acquisition Officer, who 10
would be required to keep the matter in abeyance, till the
enquiry as directed by the order dated 17.07.2017 (pg. 132) was
completed.
5.8. Insofar as the limitation is concerned, reliance is 15
placed upon Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar (Dead) by Legal
Representatives Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2015) 6
SCC 557, to contend that since a fraud has played upon the
statue, the statues of limitation would not be attracted.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
6. Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for
the respective respondents in Writ Petition Nos.5702/2019;
5817/2019 and 5881/2019 submits as under:
6.1. The contention of the petitioner-Trust that the 5
provisions of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950, are not applicable,
according to him, is without any merits and substance. He
submits, that not only did the petitioner-Trust admitted the
applicability of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 but also took the
benefits under the said Act. He invites my attention, to the 10
impugned order dated 22.07.2019 (pg.53/para 3) which
indicates, that under the provisions of Section 68 of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950 consequent to the abolition having taken
place in respect of the lands of the petitioner-Trust, the benefit
under Section 68(1) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 has been 15
taken, as a result of which, the title and possession in respect of
258 survey numbers, totally admeasuring 1189.24 acres of
agricultural land, still continues with the petitioner-Trust. He
further makes a statement, that none of the respondents, holds
any land, from and out of the lands, the numbers of which have 20
been given in para 3 of page 53 of the impugned order dated
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
22.07.2019, which has been permitted to be retained by the
petitioner-Trust.
6.2. By inviting my attention to the objection filed by the
claimant (pg.150) before the respondent No.1, it is submitted 5
that the grievance was in respect of the lands permitted to be
retained in favour of the petitioner-Trust under Section 68(1) of
the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 (para 9/pg.151 and 3 rd para/pg.
152) and since the respondents, do not own or claim any land, in
respect of the numbers mentioned therein, the objection of the 10
petitioner-Trust, cannot be construed to be an objection in respect
of the lands held by the respondents.
6.3. He further submits, that not only this, the petitioner-
Trust, has also received compensation from the Compensation 15
Commissioner Yavatmal in Revenue Case No.73/42A (4)
1950-51 under the provisions of M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 which is
equally indicated from the objection of the petitioner-Trust
(3rd para from the bottom page 152).
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
6.4. It is further submitted, that it is thereafter the
petitioner-Trust has applied for exemption under Section 129(b)
BTAL Act, 1958 and received the certificate of exemption on
02.07.1966.
6.5. He further submits, that from 1950 till 2018, no
grievance was ever made by the petitioner-Trust of any nature of
whatsoever in respect of the lands held by the respondents.
6.6. By inviting my attention to page 230 in W.P. No. 10
5817/2019, he submits that it is the claim laid by the petitioner-
Trust before the Compensation Commissioner, Darwha, in Case
No. 42-A (4/70/Arni Jahagir) in which the petitioner-Trust itself
has stated that there were tenants of antiquity in the property
allotted to it and the amount of rent received from such tenants 15
was 5717/7/3. He submits, that a claim for compensation was
also made in respect of the loss of land revenue which indicates
that land revenue was collected as its income, as the
compensation was calculated on the basis of loss of land revenue
for a period of 10 years. It is therefore contended, that this 20
document indicates that right to collect the land revenue was
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
indeed assigned to the petitioner-Trust and the same was being
collected by the petitioner-Trust.
6.7. He further invites my attention to the order dated
22.07.1952 passed by the Compensation Commissioner Yavatmal 5
(pg.256-A in W.P. No. 5817/2019) which indicates, that a
compensation of Rs.18,005/- was payable and it was further
ordered that Survey Nos.29, 35 and 124 which were admitted to
be fallow as on 01.10.1949 as they were kept for grazing, shall
vest in the State. Similarly, it was also ordered that the Gaothan 10
area 60 acres 30 gunthas, Gaothan Khalwadi 6 acres 27 gunthas,
burial ground area 4 acres 19 gunthas, river area 88 acres 38
gunthas, Nala area 10 acres and 10 gunthas and road area 11
acres 35 gunthas were also directed to be vested in the State.
6.8. On all these counts, it is submitted that petitioner-
Trust is now estopped from claiming inapplicability of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950, as the right to receive land revenue stood
assigned in favour of the petitioner-Trust as was apparent from
order dated 22.07.1952 of the Compensation Commissioner, 20
Yavatmal.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
6.9. He further invites my attention to page 76 -
Annexure-C in W.P. No.5881/2019, which even according to
Mr. Khapre, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Trust,
recognizes the grant in favour of the petitioner-Trust, to contend,
that the entries in column 4 and 5, would indicate that the land 5
was alienated to superior holders and the land revenue of
Rs.4,395/- was also assigned, in respect of Arni No. 5.
6.10. He further invites my attention to page 78 which
indicates the same position regarding alienation of 3470 acres 10
and 3 gunthas of land of Village Sukli to superior holders and so
also the assignment of land revenue of Rs.1264=00. It is thus
submitted, that the lands allotted, to the Petitioner-Trust, were
alienated lands.
6.11. By further inviting my attention to Section 2(g)(3)
(i)(ii)(iii) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950, it is contended, that the
definition of "Home Farm" includes lands included in holdings as
defined in clause (i)(ii)(iii) above. By inviting my attention to the
definition of 'specified tenant' as contained in Section 2(p) of the 20
M.P. Abolition Act, 1950, he submits that the word "tenant" as
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
used in Section 2(g)(3)(iii) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950,
would mean an ordinary tenant.
6.12. It is further contended that Section 3 of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950 contemplates vesting of all proprietary rights 5
in the State and Section 4 consequences of vesting, Section 4(2)
creating an exception by permitting the proprietor to continue to
retain Home Farm Land. Section 8 enjoins the State Government
to pay compensation and Section 12 indicates the statement of
6.13. It is submitted that a notification under Section 3(1)
and 3(2) M.P. Abolition Act, 1950, was issued by the State
Government by notification No.627-XII dated 27.01.1951 in
which the date of 14.03.1951 was notified as the date in which 15
Section 3(1) would come into effect for Yavatmal District (pg. 77
of the spiral binding of compilation filed by the respondents). It
is thus submitted, that consequent to the said notification the
petitioner-Trust applied for grant of compensation which was
awarded by the order dated 27.02.1952 by the Compensation 20
Commissioner (pg. 256-B in W.P. No. 5817/2019).
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
6.14. It is thus submitted that consequent to the
exemption granted under Section 68(1) of the M.P. Abolition Act,
1950 to the petitioner-Trust, the petitioner-Trust did not retain
title to any land, other than those, permitted to be retained by
the petitioner-Trust under Section 68 (1) of the M.P. Abolition 5
Act, 1950, which survey numbers are indicated in the complaint
dated 19.04.2018 filed by the petitioner-Trust itself (pg. 150), as
all other properties stood vested in the State Government as on
14.03.1951 the date notified for coming into force Section 3(1)
6.15. Further reliance is placed upon Section 68(1) of the
M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 as it stood then, to contend that only the
rights of the superior holder or the holder of the land as on
1.10.1949, which were home farm land, were protected, 15
however, they were liable for payment of land revenue equal to
the fair assessment therein. Even the specified tenant holding
land before the date of vesting right, was protected being the
lessee of such land under Section 68(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act,
1950, which would then be converted to an occupancy right 20
under Section 69(1) by the Dy. Commissioner under Section
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
69(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950. It is further contended that
from 1950 onwards the petitioner-Trust has not paid any land
revenue in respect of the land held by the respondents at any
point of time.
6.16. In order to buttress the submission that occupancy
rights were conferred under Section 69(2) of the M.P. Abolition
Act 1950, learned Senior Counsel invites my attention to page
268A of W.P. No.5817/19 (Vol. 2) which is in respect of one
Yashwant Janardhan Komti, whose name is entered as an 10
occupant under Section 69(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950
from 7.1.1953. The subsequent document at page 271A indicates
an application being made by one Radhu Karje Mahadu claiming
himself to be tenant of antiquity for conferral of right under
Section 69 (1) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 (pg.271), the 15
declaration in respect of which is in Form-C and is at page
271C A, the proclamation in Form-B is at page 275A and the
recommendation by the Naib Tahsildar dated 20.12.1952 is at
page 276A and the order of conferrer of right of an occupant in
Form-C is at page 278A. It is further submitted that similar is 20
the position in respect of the other respondents who from time to
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
time have been recognized as occupants of the land. Their
names have been entered in the 7/12 extracts as well as the
record of rights as the owner and cultivator of the same land as
occupants Class-I.
6.17. It is further contended that the order of exemption
under Section 129 of the BTAL Act, 1958, does not include any of
the lands of the respondents. Similar is the position, in respect of
entries in Schedule-I under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,
1950 ("MPT Act, 1950", for short hereinafter) in respect of the 10
petitioner-Trust, which does not include the lands held by the
respondents.
6.18. It is further stated that since the compensation was
accepted by the petitioner-Trust of Rs.18005/-as indicated above, 15
for the lands of Arni village and Rs.3115/- for Sukli village as
compensation under Section 5 and 8 of the M.P. Abolition Act,
1950, the petitioner-Trust is now estopped from contending
otherwise.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
6.19. It is also submitted that two circulars referred to are
of no use as the lands of the respondents are no longer Trust land
and the said circulars are only applicable to Trust lands.
6.20. It is further submitted that the judgment in 5
Madhukar Shivarkar (supra), which speaks about fraud, is
clearly not attracted, on the facts of the case as except for two
fleeting references in the petition, neither there is any material
nor any particulars of the fraud alleged to have been practiced
6.21. By relying upon paras 2 and 3 of the judgment in
Himmatrao Vs. Jaikisandas and others AIR 1966 SC 1974 it is
contended that it was permissible for every co-sharer/
ex-proprietor, in their capacity as owners of property to obtain 15
the declaration from a Civil Court as to his share and to the
extent thereof in the pre-existing property rights of that village,
so that he would lay claim to the appropriate amount of
compensation and to appropriate extent of home farm land in
that village, which has not been done by the petitioner-Trust by 20
filing any suit.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
6.22. It is therefore submitted that the competent
authority has rightly passed the impugned order as the referral
claim by the petitioner-Trust necessarily is based upon some
material being brought to his notice which does not indicate
existence of a right and his satisfaction regarding such material, 5
for which reliance is placed upon Sheeraz Ahmed s/o Sarfaraz
Ahmed Vs. The Competent Authority & Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition (General), Nagpur in Writ Petition No.6197/19
decided on 11.10.2019 and Writ Petition No.778/1999 decided
on 24.08.2005 (para 8) [Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid 10
Kadri Vs State of Maharashtra and another].
6.23. He therefore submitted that the petitions are
required to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel representing the
respondent nos.19, 21 and 22 in W.P. No.5817/2019 submits that
the respondent no.19 was the owner of Survey No.7/1,
respondent no.21 was the owner of Survey No.15/1 and
respondent no.22 was the owner of Survey Nos.15/1 and 26/1. 20
He submits that these properties were acquired by their
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
predecessors by way of decree dated 7.11.1999 passed in Civil
Suit No.218/09 (pg. 397) in which the possession was delivered
to their predecessors (pg. 402). He further submits that the same
came to be partitioned between respondent nos.19, 21 and 22
and since that date i.e. 19.12.1930 onwards, the respondent 5
nos.19, 21 and 22 and their predecessors-in-title have been in
continuous possession of the property in question and their
names have also been mutated in 7/12 extracts as Class-I holder
as well as in the record of rights also. He further relies upon the
proclamation under Section 19(1) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 10
in respect of these lands (pg.416) dated 30.06.1953 and the
order thereafter under Section 69 of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950
conferring the right of an occupant upon the predecessors of the
these respondents (pg. 422). In support of his contention, he
further submits that the land is neither included in Schedule-I 15
nor is mentioned in the objections filed by the petitioner-Trust,
nor is included in the exemption granted to the petitioner-Trust
from time to time under Section 129(b) of the BTAL Act, 1958. It
is, therefore, contended that the petitions need to be dismissed.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
8. Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent no.6,
15 and 17 (i to iv) in W.P. No.5817/2019 and respondent nos.2,
4, 9, 10, 12 to 14, 15 (i) to (iv), 16 to 19, 21 (i) and (ii), 22, 25
to 29, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 37 in WP No.5881/19, Mrs. Saware,
learned Counsel for respondent no.24 in W.P. No.5881/2019, Mr. 5
Kathane, learned Counsel for respondent no.17 in W.P.
No.5702/19; respondent no.28 in W.P. No.5817/19 and
respondent no.38 in W.P. No.5881/2019 - National Highway
Authority i.e. the acquiring body support the award passed in
favour of the respondents by the competent authority. Mr. S.P. 10
Dharmadhikari learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pravin
Deshmkuh, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 16 in W.P.
No.5702/2019; respondent nos.2 to 5, 7 to 14, 16, 18, 20, 23 to
27 in WP No.5817/19 and respondent no.30 (i) to (xi) and 33 in
W.P. No.5881/19 and respondent nos. 5 to 12, 17, 27 to 30, 35, 15
36, 43 to 46, 48, 53 legal representatives 57 to 61 to 80, 82, 84
in W.P. No.1866/2020, respondent nos.5 to 11, 15 to 18, 25 legal
representatives 26, 28 to 30, 32, 34 to 40, 42 to 52 to 54, 56 to
60, 62 to 64, 67, 68, 70, 73 to 75, 77, 80 to 82, 84 to 88, 90 to
96, 98, 99, 101 in W.P. No.1867/2020, respondent nos.4 to 20, 20
24, 26, 29 to 38, 40 to 43, 48, 50 to 56, 58 to 60, 63, 64, 66 to
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
70, 72 to 75 in W.P. No.1921/2020 respondent no.16 in W.P.
No.5702/19, respondent no.27 in W.P. No.5817/19, respondent
no.37 in W.P. No.5881/2019, respondent no.84 in W.P.
No.1866/2020, respondent no.104 in W.P. No.1867/2020 and
respondent no.75 in W.P. No.1921/2020 also supports the 5
impugned order.
9. Mr. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent no.1/State also supports the impugned order and
submits that in view of the applicability of the M.P. Abolition Act, 10
1950, the petitioner-Trust having already submitted to the
provisions of the said Act cannot now approbate and reprobate.
10. Mr. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that under the terms of the grant, the land was granted 15
for a particular purpose and no transfers were permissible, which
having been done, the lands are now required to be resumed by
the Government.
11. Mr. Khapre, learned Senior Counsel in rebuttal 20
submits that the terms "superior holder" and "alienable" as used
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
in the document referring to the grant (pg.76 & 79) by
themselves do not indicate that this was the nature of the rights
conferred, as the original grant is not available and these are
merely entries made by the revenue authorities. The grant,
according to him, was only for the purpose of managing the 5
property, so as to apply the revenue for the objects and purpose
of the petitioner-Trust. He further invites my attention to Rule IV
of the Berar Inam Rules, 1859, to contend that since the grant
was for religious purpose, it in fact created a license in favour of
the petitioner-Trust/Deosthan, the title to the lands being 10
continued to be held by the Government and the resumption, was
only permissible, on account of violation of the term of the grant
and not otherwise. By further inviting my attention to the
definition of "superior holder" and "alienated" as occurring in
Section 4 (11) and 17 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1896 as 15
corrected upto 1928, it is contended that the grant was not of
alienated lands, as the rights of ownership were retained by the
Government and therefore, neither the petitioner-Trust nor the
Mahant thereof would be said to fall within the aforesaid
definitions. It is further contended that the Deosthan was merely 20
granted a license for keeping the temple in good condition
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
subject to the income being applied to the object and purpose of
the petitioner-Trust and therefore, the act of the Mahant or any
trustee in creating the tenancy/lease in favour of third parties
was clearly contrary to the terms of the license, as it was
expected that the petitioner-Trust would cultivate the lands either 5
itself or through servants. The petitioner-Trust being a licensee,
could not further create a license in favour of third party and that
too in the form of a lease or tenancy. It is therefore submitted
that the act of the Deosthan/Mahant in creating tenancy was
clearly illegal and in fact in collusion with the persons in whom 10
tenancy/lease was created. It is further contended that the stand
of the petitioner-Trust/Mahant in the proceedings under Section
68(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 was clearly illegal and
contrary to the license created in favour of the petitioner-Trust
and therefore all consequent orders passed in that regard were 15
non est, void and not binding upon the petitioner-Trust, as the
Deosthan itself being a licensee, not having any title, could not
have created a sub-license or for that matter lease in favour of
the respondents. It is further contended that the M.P. Abolition
Act, 1950 does not abolish the title of the Government which 20
continues to hold and retain the title as there was no transfer of
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
the title whatsoever in favour of the petitioner-Trust and
therefore, there is no question of any forfeiture, as it is the
Government who is the superior holder and the contrary entries
in that regard at pages 76 and 78 were clearly incorrect and
merely based upon these entries the land could not treated to be 5
alienated land and holder therefore as superior holder.
11.1. Reiterating his reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs.
Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and another (2021) 10 SCC 10
222, it is submitted that the Pujari of a Temple does not get any
right in the property of the temple and his status is merely that of
a Manager empowered to act according to the rules and
regulation of the Trust and the terms of the grant/license,
considering which, he is also not empowered to grant any land 15
on lease or create a tenancy thereof. It is, therefore, submitted
that a mere entry in the 1810 documents as recognized by the
documents at pages 76 and 78, would not carry any meaning
whatsoever and all persons holding land through the
Mahant/petitioner-Trust were clearly trespassers, as no 20
ownership was created in favour of the petitioner-Trust, as a
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
result of which, it was not holder of alienated land therefore did
not have any right to transfer. He further submits that the
collusion between the then office bearers of the petitioner-Trust
and tenant/lessee is writ large on the face of record which is also
reflected from the communication dated 30.12.2015 (pg.125) 5
written by the then Naib Tahsildar, who was appointed to
administer the petitioner-Trust to the authorities, who had
requested for an enquiry in that regard, which has been accepted
by the Government by directing an enquiry to be held in that
11.2. He therefore submitted that under Section 3-H (4)
of the N.H. Act, 1956 once this position was brought to the
knowledge of the Land Acquisition Officer, it was necessary for
him to have referred the matter to the Civil Court for a decision 15
in that regard and the Land Acquisition Officer himself was
incompetent to take a decision in that regard. He, however, fairly
concedes that as of today Schedule-I of the petitioner-Trust does
not include the properties over which right is claimed by the
respondents, however, according to him, that is for the reason 20
that it merely records what was reported to the then Assistant
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
Charity Commissioner and till date there has been no enquiry
regarding the entitlement of the petitioner-Trust to the rest of the
lands including the lands held by the respondents, which is
necessary according to him. He further places reliance upon The
Chief Revenue Controlling Authority (Revenue), Secretariat, 5
Panaji Vs. Luis Guilherme Dias Colaco and others AIR 1986
BOMBAY 370: 1986 SCC Online (Bom) 163 (para 9) and
Lachhman Dass Vs. Jagat Ram and others (2007) 10 SCC 448
(para 19), in support of his contention regarding fraud and
collusion. He therefore submits that the impugned order is liable 10
to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be
referred to the Court under the provisions of the National
Highways Act, 1956.
11.3. In his written notes of arguments filed by Mr. Khapre 15
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Trust, apart from
reiterating his submissions he contends that in view of the
directions of this Court in W.P. No.13488/2017 and the
consequent circulars issued by the State of Maharashtra dated
6.11.2010, the third Enquiry Committee is already constituted on 20
17.7.2017, which has been directed to implement the circulars
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
issued by the State of Maharashtra. He further submitted that as
per the Government Circulars dated 30.7.2010 and 29.6.2011, if
the fields are illegally transferred either on account of claim of
the petitioners under the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 or in
accordance with the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 5
(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, the authorities are granted right to
initiate the proceedings against all these illegal transferees and
claim back land from the said illegal transferees and thereafter
put the same in possession of Deosthan. It is further submitted
that the record would show that 1189.24 acres of land was given 10
to the petitioner-Trust, however, it appears that the said lands are
also transferred in favour of the respondents by invoking the
provisions of the BTAL Act, 1958. It is submitted that the lands
which are released in favour of the petitioner-Trust are also
shown to be released thereafter in favour of the respondents by 15
showing orders under Section 68 (2) of the BTAL Ac, 1958t. It is
submitted that all these orders are illegal and liable to be
quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the grants are
recognized by the Inam Commissioner by his order dated
17.3.1864 and 8.8.1964 and as per Imam Rules if the grants 20
recognized by the Inam Commissioner are not applied for the
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
purposes of the Trust and if there is a breach of conditions, then
only the land is liable to be resumed by the Government.
Therefore, all the orders, in view of which, the respondents are
claiming title are illegal and the lands are liable to be resumed by
the Government and thereafter put in possession of Deosthan, in 5
view of the Government circulars. Hence, the board of trustees of
the petitioner-Trust has passed the resolution not to give the
consent for release of the compensation amount in favour of any
of the respondents. He further submitted that since the
proceedings before the third Committee are pending, the Land 10
Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to finally determine the
compensation as the said points were raised before him. It is
therefore submitted that the orders impugned be quashed and set
aside by directing the Land Acquisition Officer to invest the
amount in fixed deposit for such period as deems fit. 15
12. In the written notes of arguments of Mr. Agnihotri,
learned counsel for the respondent nos.19, 21 and 22 it is
submitted that the present petitioner-Trust has no right to file the
present petition and no documents like resolutions have been 20
filed which would reflect that Mr. Ganesh Tukaram Patil is being
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
authorized by the petitioner-Trust Shri Dattatraya Sansthan
Shikhar, Mahur to institute the present petition. It is further
submitted that there are various disputed questions of facts
involved in the present petition which cannot be gone into under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner- 5
Trust has an alternate remedy available with him for redressal of
their grievance. Even otherwise the respondent-authority has
already directed the petitioner-Trust to approach the Civil Court
for redressal of its grievance. He further submitted that the claim
of the petitioner-Trust is barred by limitation and therefore is hit 10
by delay and latches. He invites attention of this Court to the
various survey numbers of village Arni, which belong to the
respondents and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
13. The written notes of arguments of Mr. P.P. Deshmukh, 15
learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5, 7 to 14, 16, 18,
20, 23 to 27 points out the notification No.627-XII dated
27.1.1951 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Section
(1) and (3) of Section 3 of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 to state
that the provisions thereof were made applicable to the Districts 20
of Amravati, Akola, Buldhana and Yavatmal from 14.3.1951. It is
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
stated that the issuance of any notification under Section 3 of the
M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 in respect of any area, results in all
rights, title and interest, therein as vesting in the proprietor or
any person having interest in such proprietary rights, ceasing to
be so vested and are vested in the State for the purposes of the 5
State free from all encumbrances. Insofar as the District of
Yavatmal is concerned as and on from 14.3.1951 all rights, title
and interest of a proprietor in the estates, mahals, alienated
villages and alienated lands ceased to exist and stood vested in
the then State of Madhya Pradesh and all rights of the petitioner- 10
Trust in the lands alienated to it as "Inam" in Yavatmal District
ceased to exist as and from that day and stood vested in the State
of Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that the statement made by the
petitioner-Trust in para 6 of the petition that in view of Section
68 (1) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 the petitioner-Trust can 15
retain the lands is incorrect and erroneous. It is stated that
Chapter III of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 provides for
assessment of compensation to be paid to the proprietor and it is
an admitted fact that the petitioner-Trust was paid the
compensation as claimed by it, but unfortunately, the petitioner- 20
Trust has not produced any authentic material to show which of
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
the lands were claimed by the petitioner-Trust as home-farm land
under Sub Section (1) of Section 68 of the M.P. Abolition Act,
1950. It is further stated that in view of Sections 66 to 70 of the
M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 the petitioner-Trust has not made any
statement in the petition as to which lands were claimed to be 5
home-farm land by the petitioner-Trust and were retained by it.
The petitioner-Trust has not disclosed whether any of these lands
were subjected to determination of the land revenue nor
produced any document pertaining to the period after March
1951 showing that the petitioner-Trust was in occupation of any 10
of the lands involved in the petition in view of provisions
contained in Sub Section (1) of Section 68 of the M.P. Abolition
Act, 1950. No document has been placed on record regarding
records of rights including 7/12 extracts pertaining to period
after 13.3.1951 nor any assertion is made in the petition that any 15
land revenue has been paid by the petitioner-Trust in respect of
the lands involved in the petition after 13.3.1951. The
respondents have produced copies of the orders made in their
favour under Sub Section 2 of Section 69 of the M.P. Abolition
Act, 1950 along with pursis dated 23.1.2023, whereby they have 20
been shown in occupation of the respective lands after these
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
orders which have been passed in their favour and the
respondents have been paying land revenue and are in absolute
peaceful possession of these lands. For claiming the land under
Sub Section 4 of Section 3-H of the N.H. Act, 1956 the claimant
is required to show at least some bona fide claim to the land and 5
the existence of bona fide dispute about the disbursement of the
compensation amount and the petitioner-Trust has failed to make
out a claim to the lands involved in this petition, which being
absent the petition be dismissed.
14. In his written notes of arguments Mr. G.R. Kothari,
learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 4, 9, 10 to 19, 21, 25
to 29, 31, 32, 34, 35 and 37 states that the petitioner-Trust
approached this Court by ignoring the jurisdiction and alternate
remedy available to it. The authorities below have no power to 15
decide the issue involved in the petition and therefore the
petition itself being untenable and deserves to be dismissed. The
petition is being filed with ulterior motive to deprive the poor
landowners for getting payment of compensation for their
acquired lands. Not a single document has been filed neither 20
before the authorities below nor before this Court which would
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
show the ownership of the petitioner-Trust over the lands in
question, who has also suppressed several material facts from this
Court by making false averments. The objection taken by the
petitioner-Trust before the respondent no.1 is hopelessly time
barred. The petitioner-Trust filed objection before the respondent 5
no.1 on 4.5.2019 wherein the award came to be passed on
23.2.2019. The petitioner-Trust has not approached the learned
authority below when the notification for acquisition of lands
was issued by the National Highway Authority of India. As per
the provisions of the N.H. Act, 1956 any objection on the 10
acquisition of the land is to be raised within a period of 21 days
from the date of notification in official gazette, but the petitioner-
Trust failed to approach the Court within time provided and as
such the objection raised by the petitioner-Trust is time barred
and therefore it was rightly rejected by the learned authority 15
below. The petitioner-Trust has not filed copy of public trust
register which would show its title to the acquired lands
belonging to the respondents. To claim ownership over the
tenancy land, the public trust is required to hold exemption
certificate as per Section 129 (b) of the BTAL Act, 1958 and in 20
absence of such exemption certificate the petitioner-Trust cannot
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
demand restoration or claim ownership over the acquired lands
of the respondents. After the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 came into
force, the alleged lands which were received by the petitioner-
Trust in Inam from the Government of India vested in the State
as per the provisions of Section 3 of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950. 5
The learned Compensation Officer, Yavatmal vide its order dated
27.2.1952 allowed the application filed by the petitioner-Trust for
getting compensation and granted Rs.3115/- as total
compensation payable to them. In support of his contention,
learned counsel relied upon Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. 10
Pune Municipal Transport and others AIR 2010 SC 2962 . The
petitioner-Trust deliberately suppressed from this Court the fact
of filing the proceedings by it for compensation. The respondents
are the lawful owners and possessors of the acquired lands since
5 to 7 decades and are cultivating their respective lands and area 15
also regularly paying the taxes. The petition, according to him,
therefore needs to be dismissed with costs.
15. In her written notes of arguments Mrs. Sonali
Saware (Gadhawe), learned counsel for the respondent no.24 20
states that according to notification the agriculture land of the
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
petitioner-Trust has been acquired by the respondents and as per
published notice dated 6.5.2017 the authority did not receive any
objection regarding the land of the respondents within stipulated
period. After publication of notification under Section 3-D of the
N.H. Act, 1956 the meeting of concerned farmers have been 5
called to inform them the procedure to be followed to acquire the
land. The respondent no.1 has already received the compensation
amount from the respondent no.38. Since the land of the
answering respondent no.24 was taken by the respondent nos.1
and 38, the respondent no.1 has issued notice under Section 3-H 10
(2) of the N.H. Act, 1956 by which it is informed to the
respondent no.24 that since amount of Rs.42,68,880/- has been
granted to him as compensation by passing award, the
respondent no.24 is required to remain present on 15.4.2019
before the Sub Divisional Officer, Yavatmal. The respondent 15
no.24 had approached to the said authority as per notice, but he
has not received any compensation. In spite of request to the
Land Acquisition Officer for disbursement of the compensation
amount the respondent no.1 has ignored the present respondent
no.24 and did not pay him compensation as per award, for the 20
best reasons known to him. The respondent no.24 sent notice on
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
23.7.2019 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the
respondent. The respondent no.38 - National Highway Authority
replied to the notice and informed that amount of Rs.42,68,880/-
has been granted to him as compensation and the said amount
has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer, 5
Yavatmal but the Land Acquisition Officer did not pay any heed
to the requests made by the respondent no.24 for releasing the
compensation amount nor replied to his written communication
dated 5.2.2021. As per Section 3-H (2) of the N. H. Act, 1956 it is
the duty of the competent authority to pay the amount of 10
compensation to the person entitled as soon as the amount is
deposited by the Central Government and if any dispute arises in
regard to apportionment of the amount payable, the competent
authority is required to refer the dispute for the decision to the
Civil Court. As per respondent no.24, there is no dispute 15
regarding the apportionment of the amount of compensation.
The respondent no.1 has already received the amount from the
respondent no.38 and therefore the respondent no.1 is duty
bound to release the amount. The procedure of acquisition of
land is completed and the expansion work of highway no.361 of 20
particular area is over, still the compensation is not received by
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
the respondent no.24. Complaint filed by the respondent no.24
before the Maharashtra Human Rights Commission, Mumbai on
5.3.2021 as well as the application before the Divisional
Commissioner are still pending for decision. Since the present
respondent no.24 did not receive any reply from the respondent 5
no.1 till date, he had no option but to file petition bearing Writ
Petition No.2730/2021 for direction to release the amount of
compensation. In the said writ petition the respondent nos.1 and
38 appeared and submitted that since the petition challenging
the award is pending before the High Court they did not release 10
the amount of compensation. The present respondent no.24 is
the real owner and possessor of the acquired land and he has
produced the valid documents showing his ownership before the
acquiring authority. After the inspection of all the documents
filed by him, the land was acquired under the N.H. Act, 1956 and 15
as per the provisions of this Act the objection should be raised
within 21 days from the date of notification. The respondent no.1
has informed the petitioner-Trust by issuing a letter that the
award is passed on 22.7.2019 and the same can be challenged
before the Civil Court within 30 days from the date of the 20
judgment. It is further submitted that the petitioner-Trust failed
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
to approach the competent authority within the stipulated period
and therefore he has no right to raise any objection at the later
stage and therefore the petitioner-Trust is not entitled to claim
any relief as prayed in the instant petition and the petition is
liable to be dismissed. The petitioner-Trust has failed to file the 5
documents regarding the ownership of the land in question and
the petitioner-Trust has made claim on invalid documents. As per
the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950, the lands were removed from the
possession and in case any exemption is granted the certificate of
exemption was issued by the authority. It was the petitioner-Trust 10
who was required to produce the certificate of exemption before
the concerned authority for the alleged claim and the petitioner-
Trust has no such exemption certificate at all which falsifies the
claim of the petitioner-Trust. The petitioner-Trust is unable to
prove the ownership as well as possession over the land as 15
claimed and is making vague submissions only to create the
doubt in the minds of this Court. The petitioner-Trust has filed
detailed chart of the land acquired which is situated at Sukli with
new survey numbers along with list of the owners but in the said
list the name of the respondent no.24 is not mentioned and the 20
land owned by the respondent no.24 is also not mentioned,
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
which clearly reflects that the petitioner-Trust has not claimed
any right on the land owned by the respondent no.24. The
petitioner-Trust has wrongly made party to the respondent no.24
in the petition and for that reason also the petition is liable to be
16. The entire controversy revolves around the claim of
the petitioner-Trust, to receive the compensation, in respect of
the lands in question, which have been acquired for the National
16.1. The basic contention in this regard by Mr. Khapre,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Trust is that since the
land revenue was not assigned, the petitioner-Trust did not
become superior holder of any alienated land as defined in
Section 2(2) of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, and 15
therefore, the land being an unalienated land, was not affected
by the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950.
16.2. Section 2(2) of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928,
reads as under :
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
"2. (2) "alienated land" means land in respect of which the
Government has assigned in whole or in part its right to
receive land-revenue equal in amount to the fair assessment,
and the person to whom such assignment is made is called
16.3. The grant of the entire land in question to the
petitioner-Trust, by virtue of grant of the year 1810 (pg.76),
which is reflected from the order dated 8.9.1860 (pg. 76) and
dated 17.3.1864 (pg. 79), the subsequent order dated 4.1.1937
of the Record of Rights Officer (pg. 80) which records that the 10
lands in question as indicated in page 85 was granted on behalf
of the Nizam by Raja Chandu Lal when he was the Peshkar, for
the expenses of the petitioner-Trust, is not disputed. What is
therefore required to be considered is whether the petitioner-
Trust was a holder of unalienated land, so as not to become a 15
'superior holder'.
16.4. This contention in my considered opinion does not
hold any water for the following reasons :
(a) The extract of Form of Inam Register-A, (pg.76 in W.P.
No.5881/2019), indicates that in respect of the lands of village 20
Arni, admeasuring 6804 acres, the land revenue of Rs.4,395/-
has been assigned to the petitioner-Trust. Not only this, the said
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
Form, records the alienation of land to the superior holder, which
is the petitioner-Trust.
(b) Similar is the position in respect of the lands of Village:
Sukali, admeasuring 3,470 acres and 3 gunthas, in respect of
which the land revenue assigned is Rs.1,264/- [pg.239 in W.P. 5
No.5881/2019].
(c) The petitioner-Trust in its objections raised before the
acquiring authority, admits that 1189 acres and 24 gunthas of
agricultural land at Village : Arni and 1344 acres and 15 gunthas
of land at Village: Sukali, have been given to it under 10
Section 68(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 (pg.178 in W.P.
No.5817/2019). The Notification under Section 68(1) of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950 in respect of Farm Lands, of Village: Sukli, in
Revenue Case No.73/42-A(4) of 50-51, held by the petitioner-
Trust is at page 90 in W.P. No.5881/2019 and that in respect of 15
Village Arni, in Revenue Case No.70/42-A(4) of 50-51, is at page
(d) The petitioner-Trust, further admits in its objection that
compensation is also received by the petitioner-Trust on account
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
of abolition of its rights, in Revenue Case No.73/42A(4) 1950-51.
A claim for compensation, made by the petitioner-Trust in Case
No.70/42-A(4)/50-51 of Arni Jahagir, dated 25.7.1951, is at page
266 in W.P. No.5817/2019. A perusal of this claim would indicate
that there is an admission as regards most of the lands out of this 5
6804 acres, being occupied by tenants, named as tenants of
antiquity, from whom the amount of rent receivable by the
petitioner-Trust was at that time Rs.5717/7/3, which was the
position as recorded in the enquiry which is stated to have taken
place in 1935. In this respect it was stated that the area of 10
tenants as recorded as permanent tenants in the enquiry as
conducted in 1935 by one Shri Parmanand R & R Officer, be
excluded from being recorded as home farm land and the other
lands be classed as home farm land of the petitioner-Trust. It was
also claimed that the tenancies created after 16.3.1950 be 15
declared as void. After giving the details, of the loss caused and
which may be caused, compensation on account of loss of income
was claimed at Rs.31,850/-. Compensation was also claimed
under other heads. Though there were also tenants in some lands
whose tenancy was claimed to be less than 10 years as created 20
under the Act No.19/1950, it was contended that these tenants
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
were not in continuous possession for the last 10 years. A claim
for loss of income, on account of the petitioner-Trust being
deprived from holding Bazar, due to loss of rights in land was
also claimed before the Civil Judge-II Class, Darwha, on
19.9.1951 (pg.274 in W.P. No.5817/2019/Vol-II). A further claim 5
was made before the Compensation Commissioner, Darwha
(pg.294 in W.P. No.5187/2019), on 18.2.1952, regarding certain
survey numbers as stated therein on the ground that they were
leased out to tenants and therefore were not fallow (Padit) lands
so as to vest them in the Government. This would clearly indicate 10
that the petitioner-Trust, accepted the position regarding the
applicability of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 to lands granted to it
and had thus sought compensation, in that regard.
(e) The Compensation-cum-Claims Officer, Yavatmal, in
Revenue Case No.70/42-A(4)/1950-51, Village Arni, by his order 15
dated 27.2.1952 (pg.302 in W.P. No.5817/2019) granted a
compensation of Rs.18,005/- on account of loss of income to the
petitioner-Trust. In respect of the claim that tenancies below 10
years ought not to be considered, the claim was rejected on
account of the fact that such tenancies had been certified by the 20
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
Tahsildar (pg.300 in W.P. No.5187/2019- there is incorrect typing
in this regard at pg.304/para 4). Survey Nos. 8/1, 12, 24, 59, 61,
101, 102, 108, 110, 118, 119, 120, 125, 127, 143 were treated as
Home farm lands. Lands of Survey nos. 29, 35, 124, as well as
Gaothan, Gothan, Burial, River, Nalla and road areas were 5
declared to have vested in the State.
(f) What is material to note is that this is compensation
awarded to the petitioner-Trust under Section 18 of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950 for being divested of its proprietary rights
under the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950. The Statement of 10
compensation in Form-II dated 27.2.1952 is at page 306 in W.P.
No.5817/2019, and would demonstrate that not only the
petitioner-Trust has lost proprietary rights in the lands held by it,
but had also claimed compensation for such divesting, which had
been granted and received by it. A similar order and statement 15
in respect of the lands at village : Sukli, is at page 204; Form
No.II at page 205 and Form No.III at page 206 of W.P.
No.5881/2019, which demonstrates that compensation of
Rs.3115.7 was paid for loss of income from the lands at Village :
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
Sukli on account of the notification under Section 3(1) of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950.
(g) The statement in Form-III (Rule 5) showing the details of
the land vesting in the State, under Section 3(1) of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950 dated 27.2.1952 (Pg.310 in W.P. No. 5
5817/2019) in respect of Revenue Case No.70/42-A(4)/50-51,
for village Arni, would indicate that more than 5380 acres of land
stood vested in the State. Similar vesting also stands in respect of
the lands at Village Sukli, which position is not disputed by the
(h) It has not been pointed out to me that the vesting, as
indicated above, has at anytime been questioned by the
petitioner-Trust, by initiating appropriate proceedings, which
would indicate that the vesting is complete.
(i) Section 68(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 as it then 15
stood, declared every person holding land as a specified tenant
before the date of vesting, on and from the date of such vesting
to be a deemed lessee of such land and except where the State
Government otherwise directed, to hold the same on payment by
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
way of lease money annually, the same amount as was payable by
him as rent and on such other terms and conditions on which he
was holding before such date. Thus, all those tenants of antiquity,
who were holding lands as specified tenants on the date of
vesting became the lessees of the State, on payment of lease 5
money, equivalent to the rent paid by them earlier.
(j) Section 69 (1) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 as it then
stood granted a right to a person becoming a lessee under
Section 68(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 to apply to the
authority indicated in that behalf, to apply for conferral upon him 10
the right of an occupant, by making a deposit by way of premium
to be calculated as indicated therein.
(k) It is subsequent to such vesting that in proceedings
initiated by the various tenants for conferral of right upon them,
that orders have been passed deciding the premium and rights 15
been conferred upon such lessees. [see pages 268-A to 278-A &
327 and onwards in W.P. No.5817/2019 ].
(l) It is thereafter that the petitioner-Trust has applied for and
been granted right to lands under Section 68(2) of the M.P.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
Abolition Act, 1950 to certain lands as is indicated by one such
certificate in that regard dated 11.4.1975, (pg. 394 in W.P.
No.5817/2019).
16.5. This being the position, the petitioner-Trust in sum
and substance admits the applicability of the M.P. Abolition Act, 5
1950 to it and the lands held by it and so also receiving the
benefit under Section 68(2) thereof. Thus, the claim of the
petitioner-Trust that it held unalienated land and therefore was
not a superior holder, on account of which the M.P. Abolition Act,
1950 did not become applicable to it, cannot be sustained. 10
16.6. It is also material to note that though in its
objections, the petitioner-Trust has raised a plea that the
applicability of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 to it and its holdings
was illegal, no proceedings of whatsoever nature had been
initiated by it, to question such applicability of the M.P. Abolition 15
Act, 1950. Rather on the contrary, it has remained content with
taking the benefit under Section 68(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act,
1950 in the matter of retaining the lands to the extent as
indicated above. The petitioner-Trust thus cannot be permitted to
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
approbate and reprobate. For all the above reasons, the plea
therefore is without any merits.
17. The plea that all these lands, in respect of which a
claim is now being raised by the petitioner-Trust, were lands
vested in the State and therefore the State should now repossess, 5
them and deliver title and possession to the petitioner-Trust, is
not only without any merit but is also contrary to the stand taken
by the petitioner-Trust, itself, as in that case, the petitioner-Trust
would also not be entitled to continue to hold the lands
mentioned in the orders of exemption under Section 68(2) of the 10
M.P. Abolition Act, 1950. The petitioner-Trust, thus cannot be
permitted to say that on the one hand it will continue to exercise
rights of ownership over the lands which are the subject matter
of the orders of exemption under Section 68(2) of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950 and on the other hand claim that the M.P. 15
Abolition Act, 1950 itself, was not applicable to it, and therefore
all orders passed thereunder are null and void.
18. It would thus be apparent that except for the lands
in respect of which an order under Section 68(2) of the M.P.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
Abolition Act, 1950 has been passed in favour of the petitioner-
Trust, it cannot claim entitlement to any other land.
19. There is yet one other aspect of the matter to be
considered, namely that the petitioner-Trust was granted
exemption under Section 129(b) of the BTAL Act, 1958 for 5
holding agricultural lands which certificate of exemption is dated
2.7.1966. However, prior to that the Maharashtra Agricultural
Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, had already come into
force and therefore the effect of tillers day, would be something
20. Even if the petitioner-Trust has made
representations, to the State and an Enquiry Committee is stated
to have been formed, which has since been claimed to be
re-constituted, that by itself, is of no benefit to the petitioner-
Trust as this cannot become an impediment in the way of the 15
persons who have been granted tenancy rights under the various
statutes from claiming such rights. If the petitioner-Trust was in
any way aggrieved by such grants/recognitions, it was necessary
for it to have challenged them by initiating appropriate
proceedings in a Competent Court of law, which alone could have 20
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
decided the legality and validity of such a plea. This however
does not appear to have been done by the petitioner-Trust, which
speaks of a saga of lost opportunities, as the record indicates that
such rights have been conferred upon the respondents and their
predecessors-in-title, several decades earlier. 5
21. The above discussion would also demonstrate that
the plea of fraud being now raised by the petitioner-Trust relying
upon Madhukar Shivarkar (supra), is clearly misplaced, as for
decades together the petitioner-Trust has not taken any steps to
claim and assert any right, in case it thought that such a claim or 10
right existed in it, for it cannot be said to be oblivious of such a
claim or right, as is being sought to be asserted now.
22. The Circulars dated 30.7.2010 (pg.101 in W.P.
5881/2019) and its corrigendum dated 29.6.2011 (pg.104 in W.P.
No.5881/2019), are general circulars which speak about the 15
necessity of recording the correct position in the revenue records
and correcting them, where necessary. They do not assist the
petitioner -Trust in its claim that it still continues to hold title to
the lands which it did, prior to the notification under Section
3(1) & (2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 dated 27.1.1951, in 20
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
which the date of 14.3.1951 was notified as the date on which
Section 3(1) of the said Act, would come into effect for Yavatmal
District.
23. It is thus apparent that except for the lands which
are claimed to have been exempted in favour of the petitioner- 5
Trust by virtue of orders under Section 68(1) and (2) of the M.P.
Abolition Act, 1950 all rights in the lands which the petitioner-
Trust, claimed to have possessed earlier by virtue of the grant by
the Peshkar to the Nizam, stood lost and vested in the State,
which has since considering the possession of the cultivators of 10
such lands and the legal position as applicable, granted them
rights, thereto on payment of land revenue by recognising their
rights therein.
24. That takes me to the plea by Mr. Khapre, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Trust, that since an objection 15
was raised, the respondent no.1, was duty bound to refer the
dispute to the Civil Court. In Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid
Kadri (supra) though it was a case under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the learned Division Bench of this Court, while
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
considering the issue as to when reference can be made, in case
of a dispute, has held as under :
"8. Bare perusal of the impugned award, therefore, discloses
that the Land Acquisition Officer being unable to arrive at
the finding about the entitlement of the petitioner as a 5
person interested to claim the amount awarded on account
of acquisition of the land and, on the claim made by the
CIDCO that the land in question has already been acquired
for the Forest Department, proceeded to pass the order for
reference under section 30 and directed that the amount be 10
deposited in Reference Court in such proceedings. Section
30 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that when the
amount of compensation has been settled under section 11,
if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or
any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or 15
any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such
dispute to the decision of the Court. Obviously, in cases
where dispute arises before the Land Acquisition Officer
regarding the apportionment of the compensation fixed by
him in relation to the land sought to be acquired, certainly 20
the matter will have to be referred to the Reference Court in
terms of section 30. However, it is to be noted that section
30 specifically speaks of if any dispute arises as to the
apportionment of the compensation. In other words, there
has to be a dispute arising before the Land Acquisition 25
Officer before he can exercise the powers under section 30
and dispute should be in relation to the apportionment of
the compensation. The apportionment of the compensation
spoken of under section 30 necessarily relates to the
apportionment between the persons interested. Under 30
section 11(1), the Collector consequent to the replies
received to the notices under section 9 of the said Act has to
make an award in relation to the true area of the land,
compensation of which, in his opinion, should be allowed
for the land and the apportionment of the compensation 35
among all the persons known or believed to be interested in
the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information,
whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
In other words, while deciding the exact area which is the
subject matter of acquisition and ascertaining market value 40
of such land in terms of sections 23 and 24 of the said Act,
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
the Land Acquisition Officer has necessarily to decide about
the apportionment of the compensation to all the persons
known or believed to be interested in such land. The very
fact that the Land Acquisition Officer is expected to decide
about apportionment of the compensation among the 5
persons interested, disclose the power of the Land
Acquisition Officer to look into the rights of the interested
persons in relation to the land sought to be acquired and,
based on such rights, to decide about the apportionment of
the compensation. In order to ascertain rights of the persons 10
interested for the purpose of apportionment of
compensation, obviously, the Land Acquisition Officer will
have to look into the material to be produced by the person
interested in support of their claim as the person interested
and their share in the land acquired. Needless to say that 15
apportionment of compensation to the persons interested
would not be possible without application of mind by the
Land Acquisition Officer to the claim putforth by the
interested persons and substantiated by them with
necessary materials in that regard. From this, it also follows 20
that when any person interested wants to raise a dispute as
regards the entitlement of the compensation to himself or
disentitlement of compensation to any other person
interested in the matter, such person has necessarily to
substantiate his claim or dispute by necessary material or 25
evidence in support of such objection. It is not a mere
objection for the sake of objection that would empower the
Land Acquisition Officer to blindly exercise powers under
section 30. In order to exercise powers under section 30, the
Land Acquisition Officer will have to disclose the 30
application of mind to the dispute sought to be raised and
the necessity of adjudication of that dispute by the Court of
competent jurisdiction and, therefore, the matter being
needed to be referred to the Reference Court in exercise of
powers under section 30. It cannot be done in the manner 35
of postman's job to deliver letters but it must necessarily
disclose application of mind by the Land Acquisition Officer
in the award itself that there is a need for reference of the
matter to the Reference Court under section 30.
9. Bearing in mind these provisions of law, if one peruses 40
the impugned award, it would disclose that apart from the
letter filed by CIDCO informing that the land in question
has already been acquired for the Forest Department, there
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
was no material placed before the Land Acquisition Officer
to exercise the powers under section 30 and deny the
compensation to the petitioner who was clearly shown to be
the owner of the property pursuant to the Sale Deed in his
10. Attention was drawn to section 3 of the Maharashtra
Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 to contend that all
private forests stand acquired under the said provision and,
therefore, the petitioner could not have claimed the
compensation in relation to the land in question, the same 10
having already been acquired in exercise of powers under
section 3 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition)
Act, 1975. Undoubtedly, sub-section (1) of section 3 of the
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975
provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any 15
law for the time being in force or in any settlement, grant,
agreement, usage, custom or any decree or order of any
Court, Tribunal or authority or any other document, with
effect on and from the appointed day, all private forests in
the State shall stand acquired and vest, free from all 20
encumbrances, in, and shall be deemed to be, with all rights
in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of
the State Government, and all rights, title and interest of
the owner or any person other than Government subsisting
in any such forest on the said day shall be deemed to have 25
been extinguished. The Act came into force with effect from
1-10-1975. However, the fact remains that apart from
merely claiming that the land has been acquired for the
Forest Department in exercise of powers under the said
provision, the respondents have unable to show that the 30
land in question did form a forest land for the purpose of
acquisition under the said Act at any point of time. It is
pertinent to note that even in the impugned award there is
no finding about the nature of the land in question to be a
forest land or that it was a forest land at any point of time 35
earlier to passing of the impugned award. On the contrary, a
description regarding the land disclosed that it did not have
any wild trees nor any fruit bearing trees. In the absence of
any finding that the land in question was at any point of
time a forest land to which the provisions of the 40
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 apply
as well as in view of the specific finding by Land Acquisition
Officer that the land did not have any wild trees or fruit
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
bearing trees therein, it is difficult to accept the contention
of the respondents that the Land Acquisition Officer was
justified, on the basis of the letter of CIDCO, to refer the
matter for decision of the Reference Court in exercise of
11.Neither the impugned award on the face of it justifies
the order under section 30, nor the respondents have been
able to justify the action on the part of the Land Acquisition
Officer in referring the matter to the Reference Court under
section 30 in the case in hand. Therefore, the impugned 10
award, to the extent it directs the matter to be referred to
the Reference Court under section 30 and consequential
deposit of the amount of compensation awarded therein in
Reference Court, cannot be sustained and is liable to be
It is, therefore, apparent that the dispute as
contemplated, ought to be a real and genuine dispute and the job
of the competent authority, is not a mere mechanical one, but
requires application of mind, to the facts placed before it, so as to 20
at least form a prima facie opinion, whether a dispute genuinely
and bona fidely, exists and only then, refer the matter, for
otherwise, it would become permissible for any person, even
without any semblance of a right, to file an objection and claim
that since a dispute existed, the same be referred, leading to 25
drastic consequences, for the person acknowledged to be the
owner of the land acquired, upon an enquiry already having been
conducted in that regard, to the satisfaction of the competent
authority.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
24.1. In Sheeraz Ahmed s/o Sarfaraz Ahmed (supra),
which was a case under the National Highways Act, while
considering a similar position as to referral of a dispute, a learned
Single Judge of this Court has held that at least a prima facie
entitlement or any semblance of dispute existing with regard to 5
apportionment of compensation has to be made out, with which
view, I, have no hesitation in concurring.
24.2. As indicated above, the dispute which is claimed
must be genuine and bona fide, as that tends to deprive the
person in whose favour the award has been passed, on account of 10
acquisition of his lands, which award, upon an enquiry, holds
such person legally entitled to the compensation for such
acquisition, from the fruits of compensation and therefore the
requirement for the objector, which in this case is the petitioner-
Trust to at least prima facie establish that such dispute was 15
bona fide and genuine becomes all the more important. Thus,
the dispute which is now being sought to be created by the
petitioner-Trust for claiming any right in the compensation,
which has now been determined in respect of the lands acquired,
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
has necessarily to be viewed in the contextual background of the
above conduct of the petitioner-Trust.
24.3. A perusal of the documents placed on record,
demonstrate that all throughout, the petitioner-Trust, was clearly
aware that the parcels of the lands in question, were not in its 5
possession, not only from 1968, but even prior thereto, but were
in actual cultivating possession of the respondents or their
predecessors, since last several decades. Such cultivating
possession of the respondents or their predecessors, also stood
recorded in the 7/12 extracts and other revenue records. The 10
cultivating occupation of these parcels of lands by the
respondents, or their predecessors, was duly accepted by the
State in its Revenue Department by taking land revenue from
them.
24.4. All this went on for more than the last seventy years, 15
preceding the date of the notice of acquisition. All through this
time, the petitioner-Trust, never approached any Court of law, for
asserting its rights in these properties. Mere making
representations/applications to the State Government or its
constituting any Committee, cannot amount to the petitioner- 20
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
Trust, approaching any legal forum, claiming or asserting any
rights in the lands in question, of which it stood divested of on
account of the applicability of the provisions of the M.P. Abolition
Act, 1950 by virtue of the notification under Section 3 of the M. P.
Abolition Act, 1950 which is dated 14.3.1951, which applicability 5
was never questioned at any point of time.
24.5. It is also material to note that it is not the claim of
the respondents that the lands in respect of which they are
claiming entitlement to compensation, on account of its
acquisition, are either included in the orders under Section 68(2) 10
of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 or in the order passed under
Section 129 of the BTAL Act, 1958. Rather it is their specific
claim, that the lands for which they claim entitlement for
compensation are not included in such orders of exemption.
25. In view of what has been discussed in respect of the 15
factual position, availing on record, I, do not feel it necessary to
go into the reliances relied upon, by the learned Counsels.
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
26. In view of the above discussion, in my considered
opinion, these petitions are therefore disposed of in the following
terms :
(A) In all cases in which rights have been conferred/
recognised by the State/Revenue Officials, by passing orders, in 5
favour of the respondents, if such lands are included in the
survey numbers permitted to be retained by the petitioner-Trust
in the orders under Section 68(2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950
the impugned order dated 22.7.2019 by the respondent no.1,
refusing to refer the matter, is set aside and the respondent no.1 10
is directed to refer such matters to the Civil Court, as prima facie
a dispute would exist.
(B) In all cases, where rights are claimed to have been
accrued in favour of the tenants under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, 15
on account of the tillers day and the date of exemption granted
to the petitioner-Trust under Section 129(b) of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, for
holding agricultural lands which certificate of exemption is dated
2.7.1966, the respondent no.1, would make a preliminary 20
WP 5702 of 2019 - Judgment.odt
enquiry and in case he is satisfied that the matter needs referral,
do so. If he finds otherwise, he can decline to refer.
(C) In all cases where it is found that the lands held by
the respondents, do not fall, within those survey numbers
permitted to be retained by the petitioner-Trust in the orders 5
under Section 68 (2) of the M.P. Abolition Act, 1950 the
impugned order dated 22.7.2019 by the respondent no.1,
refusing to refer the matter would stand, as the petitioner-Trust
has already lost title to such lands and the holders of those lands
are entitled to the release of compensation in their favour, with 10
accrued interest, if any, in case the amounts are deposited in an
interest carrying mode.
(D) In any other case not covered by the above, if on a
preliminary enquiry the respondent no.1, is satisfied that the
matter needs referral, he would be entitled to do so. 15
Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/02/2024 16:56:03
