Bombay High Court
Asif Khan S O Haji Ismail Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 14 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1048-DB
1 cp-192-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.192 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8126 OF 2020
Asif Khan s/o Haji Ismail Khan
Age : 54 years, Occ: Agri & Business,
R/o : Standard Silk Mills Compound,
Paithan Road, Aurangabad ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai
2. Astik Kumar Pandey
The District Collector,
Aurangabad.
3. Rajesh Joshi
The Sub Divisional Officer and,
Competent Authority,
National Highway No. 211,
Aurangabad
4. Ravindra S Ingale
The Project Director,
National Highway, P.I.U.B-23,
Near Kamgar Chowk, Jaibhawani Nagar,
N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad.
5. Vijay Chaujan
Upper Tahsildar, Aurangabad ... Respondents
....
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGPfor Respondent/State.
Mr. Amol M. Patale, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W.JOSHI, JJ.
2 cp-192-2024.odt
RESERVED ON : 19th DECEMBER, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Rohit W. Joshi, J.):
-
1. The Petitioner in the present contempt petition had initially
filed a petition, being Writ Petition No.8126 of 2020. In the said Writ
Petition the Petitioner contended that he was owner of a portion of land
admeasuring 0 H. 81 R., being a part of Gut No.15 (total area 2 H. 37
R.) of village Malewada, Taluka and District Aurangabad.
2. The petitioner claimed that a portion admeasuring 0 H. 03 R.
i.e., 300 sq.mtrs. of land owned by him was acquired for the purpose of
widening of Dhule-Solapur stretch of National Highway No.211. He
claims that although, he was entitled to receive compensation for the
acquired land, the compensation was wrongly awarded to Smt.
Subhadra Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole on the
basis of no objection issued by one Janardhan Gangadhar Dhating
(minor, represented by guardian Chandrakala Gangadhar Dhating). He
claims that notice of the acquisition proceedings was not served on
him. However, when possession of the land was being taken he realised
that land owned by him was acquired for the purpose of road widening
and accordingly, he made application dated 14.05.2018 raising
objection and claiming compensation for the acquired land.
3. Since, the efforts made through representations for claiming
3 cp-192-2024.odt
compensation did not yield any positive results, the petitioner filed a
petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No.8126 of 2020. It will
be pertinent to mention that prior to filing of the said petition the
petitioner had filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.752 of 2019
claiming practically the same reliefs as were sought in the said petition.
When this fact was confronted to the petitioner during the course of
hearing of the petition on 27.09.2022 a statement was made on behalf
of the petitioner that an application for withdrawal of the civil suit was
already filed and that the suit would be withdrawn, accordingly, and on
the basis of the aforesaid statement, the matter was taken up for
hearing. The matter came up for hearing on 10.03.2023. Office note
dated 09.03.2023 indicates that despite directions to place order
regarding withdrawal of civil suit No.752 of 2019, no document was
filed to indicate withdrawal of the said suit. The petition came to be
decided finally by order dated 10.03.2023. The petition was not
pressed and came to be disposed of accordingly vide order dated
10.03.2023. However, directions were issued to respondent No.4 in the
said petition (it appears to be a typographical error and it should be
respondent no.3-the competent authority under NHAI Act) to treat the
petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner with
respect to payment of compensation for 0.03 HR land in Gut no.15. The
said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of ten weeks
4 cp-192-2024.odt
from 20.03.2023, i.e., the date fixed for appearance of the parties
before respondent No.3.
4. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition in
which the substantive relief claimed is that the respondents should be
directed to pay amount of compensation for 0.03 HR land in gut no.15
to him. He has also prayed that the respondent should be directed to
carry out measurement of gut no.15 in order to determine exact area of
land owned by him which has been utilized for the purpose of road
widening with further directions to determine and pay compensation
for the additional land.
5. The petitioner claims that the claim has been decided and
partly allowed by the competent authority vide order dated 26.04.2023.
This appears to be the foundation for the prayer for issuing directions
for remittance of compensation with respect to 0.03 HR land. Perusal of
the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector and
Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), NHAI, Aurangabad indicates
that the claim of the petitioner has been allowed to the extent of
entitlement to receive compensation for 0.03 HR, i.e., 300 sq. mtrs. of
land in Gut No. 15. Accordingly, directions were issued to the Project
Director, NHAI, Aurangabad to deposit sum of Rs.22,29,268/- towards
compensation to be paid to the petitioner for his 0.03 HR, i.e., 300
5 cp-192-2024.odt
sq.mtrs of land in gut no.15.
6. In response to the directions dated 26.04.2023 issued by the
competent authority, the Deputy General Manager (Technical) and
Project Director, NHAI, Aurangabad has issued communication dated 5 th
August 2023 to the Competent Authority, inter alia, requesting that the
amount of compensation initially paid to other persons should be
recovered and the same should be paid to the person entitled to receive
the same. Thus, respondent no.4 did not deposit the amount as directed
by the competent authority.
7. At this stage, we may refer to the replies filed by respondent
Nos.2 and 3 in the Writ Petition. Respondent No.3-the Competent
Authority has stated in paragraph 11 of reply dated 28.07.2021 that as
per re-measurement carried out by the office of Deputy Superintendent
of Land Records, the area admeasuring 500 sq. mtrs. belonging to
Janardhan Gangadhar Dhating was shown in the name of Jalba Abbas
Gaikwad to the extent of 200 sq. mtrs and in the name of petitioner to
the extent of 300 sq. mtrs. Thereafter, it is stated that since the re-
measurement was done after passing of the award and disbursement of
compensation amount, the petitioner was only entitled to recover the
amount from the persons to whom it was paid and not from the
Competent Authority or respondent No.4-National Highways Authority
6 cp-192-2024.odt
of India ("NHAI"). The reply of respondent No.4 dated 19.07.2021 in
the said petition is also on similar lines. Respondent No.4 has also
accepted that in fact land of the petitioner was acquired to the extent of
0.03 HR, i.e., 300 sq. mtrs. However, it is stated that since the
compensation has already been disbursed the compensation cannot be
directed to be paid to the petitioner once again. In this context, when
we refer to the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 26.04.2023
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, we find that the said
order is passed after hearing the petitioner as well as Smt. Subhadra
Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole. The order reflects
that having realised that the compensation was erroneously paid to
Smt. Subhadra Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole, the
respondent No.3 had already taken steps for initiation of RRC
proceedings for recovery of amount of compensation paid to them. The
respondent No.3 has also directed the respondent No.4 vide clause-3 of
the operative order to deposit amount of compensation of
Rs.22,29,268/- for payment to the petitioner towards acquisition of 300
sq.mtrs, i.e., 0.03 HR land in Gut No.15.
8. The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 is
that the order dated 26.04.2023 does not decide the claim of the
petitioner finally, in as much as, vide clause-2 of the order, joint re-
7 cp-192-2024.odt
measurement is directed to be conducted by the office of Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records in order to determine how much land
of different co-owners of Gut No.15 is actually covered under
acquisition for National Highway No.211. The contention of respondent
No.4 is liable to be rejected. It is contrary to express statements made in
the replies filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition as also
in the affidavit in reply dated 06.03.2024 filed in the present petition.
The statements made in the replies on oath are completely binding on
respondent No.4. The statements made in the replies of respondent
Nos.3 and 4 are completely binding on them. We may refer to judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nagindas Ramdas vs.
Dalpatram Locharam Alias Brijram and Ors. reported in AIR 1974 SC
471, wherein, it is clearly stated that the admission in pleading is
completely binding on the party and such admission by itself can be a
foundation of any claim against the party concerned. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para No.26 of the judgment has held as under:-
"26 ... Admissions if true and clear are by far the best proof of the
facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admission
admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties
or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher
footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are
fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of
proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of
the parties. On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are
receivable at the rival as evidence are by themselves not conclusive.
They can be shown to be wrong."
8 cp-192-2024.odt
9. The fact that steps were taken for initiation of RCC against
Smt. Subhadra Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole
would further fortify the case of the petitioner that it is his land to the
extent of 300 sq. mtrs. which is acquired and accordingly he is entitled
for compensation in lieu of the same.
10. The directions in the order dated 26.04.2023 regarding
further re-measurement is in relation to finding out further area that
might have been affected by the road. The said direction is independent
of the direction issued for payment of compensation for 0.03 HR, i.e,
300 sq. mtrs. of the land of the petitioner. There are clear findings in
the order to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation for 300 Sq. Mtrs i.e. 0.03 HR land in Gut No.15.
11. Since respondent No.4 had not deposited the amount as
directed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 26.04.2023, we have
passed order dated 21.10.2024 directing respondent No.4 to deposit
the amount in the Court. Respondent No.4 has accordingly deposited
the amount. Since the land of the petitioner is acquired without his
consent by exercising eminent domain and undisputedly compensation
payable to him is not paid, we deem it fit to direct payment of
compensation amount which is payable to him. In case Smt. Subhadra
Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole or any one of them
9 cp-192-2024.odt
has challenged the order dated 26.04.2023, the disbursement will be
subject to outcome of the said proceedings. The petitioner shall file
undertaking on affidavit that in the event the matter is decided against
him and/or it is found that he is not entitled to receive the amount of
compensation, either in its entirety or in part, he will refund the same
within a period of three weeks from such order. The amount be
disbursed to the petitioner only after obtaining such undertaking.
12. As regards prayer clause(d) which pertains to directions of
measurement of land bearing Gut No.15 for determination of extra land
allegedly acquired out of Gut No.15 for which compensation has not
been paid. We find that the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by this
Court is restricted to decide claim of the petitioner for compensation
with respect to 0.03 HR land. Since there is no direction for
determination of compensation for land allegedly acquired in addition
to 0.03 HR. prayer clause (d) stands rejected.
The Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
A.G.Narwade
