Bombay High Court
Nagendra Chanmalappa Kesur And Ors vs The Competent Authority Dy. Collector ... on 21 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:13216
k 1/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6463 OF 2024
1 Nagendra Chanmalappa Kesur
2 Shrimant Chanmalappa Kesur
since deceased through legal heirs
2a Parvati Shrimant Kesur
3 Shivputra Chanmalappa Kesur
4 Parmeshwar Chanmalappa Kesur ....Petitioners
V/S
1 The Competent Authority
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)
2 National Highways Authority of India
3 The Union of India
through its Ministry of Roadways and Transport
4 Shrimant Mahadeo Vagdari
5 Bhutali Mahadeo Vagdari
6 Shivnna Mahadeo Vagdari
7 Mallinath Ningappa Vagdari
8 Manjunath Ningappa Vagdari ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Saakshat Relekar
for the Petitioners.
Ms. M.S. Shrivastava, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Mohansingh U. Rajput, for Respondent Nos.4 to 8/State.
__________
katkam Page No. 1 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2025 10:35:24 :::
k 2/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 17 MARCH 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 21 MARCH 2025.
J U D G M E N T:
1. By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 16
April 2024 passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy
Collector, (Land Acquisition No.11), Solapur, rejecting the
objection raised by the Petitioner to disbursement of
compensation to Respondent Nos.4 to 8. The impugned order is
challenged on the ground of absence of jurisdiction with the
Competent Authority to decide the disputes relating to
disbursement of compensation on account of existence of
competing claims between Petitioners and Respondent Nos.4 to 8
relating to title of acquired land.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Petition are that
one Mr. Siddhappa Sangappa Kesur was the owner and
possessed land bearing Gat Nos. 351/1, 351/2, 351/3, 342, 343/2,
346/1 and 346/2 at village Mandargi, Taluka Akkalkot, District
Solapur. Said Siddhappa Sangappa Kesur passed away in the
year 1960 leaving behind his sons Bhimsa and Chanmalappa.
According to Petitioners, there was family partition, under which
Bhimsa received land bearing Gat Nos. 351/2, 342 and 346/2
whereas Chanmalappa received land bearing Gat Nos. 351/1,
351/3, 341 and 345/2. It appears that the consolidation scheme
k 3/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
was implemented in the village in the year 1977 under which the
Gats were renumbered as under:
Old Gat Nos. 351/1, 351/2(a) New Gat No.697
Old Gat Nos.351/2(b), 351/3 New Gat No.696
3. According to the Petitioners there was a gross error in
description of Gat numbers while implementing the
consolidation scheme and accordingly Bhimsa filed
objection/complaint before the Settlement Commissioner on 28
February 1976 for rectification of mistake. By order dated 7 May
1983, the Settlement Commissioner allowed the
objection/complaint raised by Bhimsa. According to Petitioners,
the Consolidation Officer issued amended land consolidation
scheme on 27 October 1983 thereby rectifying the mistake by
renumbering the Gat numbers. However, despite passing order
dated 7 May 1983 as well as the amended Consolidation Scheme
dated 27 October 1983, effect was not given in the revenue
records. According to the Petitioners, the position qua the old
Gat number, Gat number after implementation of Consolidation
Scheme and Gat number after correction is as under:
Old Consolidation Section 19(1) land Amendment land
Scheme consolidation scheme consolidation scheme
Gat No.351/1 Gat No.697 Gat No.951,
(Gat No.351/1, 351/2(a)) Gat No.697
Gat No.351/2 Gat No.696 Gat No.696
Gat No.351/3 (Gat No.351/2(b), 351/3)
4. Petitioners are legal heirs of Chanmalappa Siddhappa
Kesur, who passed away in the year 2010. According to the
k 4/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
Petitioners, land bearing Gat Nos.951 and 696 remained with
Petitioners in accordance with amended consolidation scheme.
5. By Notification dated 6 May 2022, the Government of India
announced acquisition of Gat Nos. 697 and 951 as well as Gat
No. 681 for construction of National Highway at Ahmednagar,
Solapur and Akkalkot - Maharashtra/Karnataka border. During
the acquisition process, Petitioners discovered that Bhimsa's
legal heirs had sold Petitioners' share in Gat No. 951 to
Respondent Nos.4 to 8 vide registered Sale Deed dated 8
November 2001. Petitioners therefore addressed notice dated 20
July 2022 raising objection about the acquisition process which
was followed by further objections raised on 1 August 2022 and 7
November 2022. On 20 February 2024 Petitioners filed
Application No. RR/2972/2023 for award of compensation to them
in respect of the acquired land. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 objected to
the said application on the ground that they are the owners of
land bearing Gat No. 951 under the Sale Deed dated 8 November
2001. The Competent Authority has adjudicated the dispute by
the impugned order dated 16 April 2024 rejecting Petitioners'
claim for payment of compensation in respect of the acquired
land and directing payment of compensation in respect of the
acquired land to Respondent Nos.4 to 8. Petitioners are
aggrieved by order dated 16 April 2024 passed by the Competent
Authority and have accordingly filed the present Petition.
6. Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Petitioners would submit that the impugned order dated 16 April
k 5/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
2024 passed by the Competent Authority is wholly without
jurisdiction. He would submit that the Competent Authority
ought to have made a reference to the Civil Court for deciding
the dispute amongst Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 8
about entitlement to receive compensation of acquired land. He
would submit that the Competent Authority has erroneously
conducted enquiry into title of the acquired land, when such
jurisdiction is not vested in him. He would submit that this
Court has repeatedly held that every dispute relating to payment
of compensation in respect of acquired land between two
contesting claimants must necessarily be referred to the Civil
Court under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 3-H of
the National Highways Act, 1956 (the Act). In support of his
contention, he would rely upon judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in Arun s/o Trimbakrao Lokare vs. State of
Maharashtra and others1 and Rajaram Waman Rane &
Ors. vs. Ramkrishna Mahadev Rane and others 2. He would
accordingly submit that since the order passed by the Competent
Authority is ex-facie without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be
set aside by directing reference to the Civil Court which alone
can decide entitlement of Petitioners and Respondent Nos.4 to 8
to receive compensation of the acquired land.
7. The Petition is opposed by Mr. Rajput, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 8. He would submit that
Respondent Nos.4 to 8 have purchased the acquired land through
1 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 612
2 (2019) 3 AIR Bom R 93
k 6/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
registered Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001 and that therefore
they are owners and possessors of the acquired land. That
Petitioners never questioned Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001
and have acquiesced in the same. That if Petitioners were to file
a suit challenging Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001 the same
would have been barred by limitation. That the jurisdiction of
Competent Authority under Section 3-H(3) of the Act is
deliberately misused to circumvent the objection of delay in
setting aside the Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001. He would
submit that Petitioners have no semblance of right in the
acquired land and the Petition is filed with the sole objective of
extracting monies from Respondent Nos.4 to 8. That Petitioners
were fully aware about execution of Sale Deed in favour of
Respondent Nos.4 to 8 whose names were mutated to the
revenue records of the concerned lands. He would further submit
that Civil Court otherwise does not have jurisdiction to decide
alleged errors in implementation of consolidation scheme. That
even civil suit challenging the Sale Deed cannot be entertained
without effecting necessary corrections in the consolidation
scheme. He would submit that payment of compensation of
acquired land to Respondent Nos.4 to 8 has already been delayed
for considerable period of time on account of baseless objections
raised by Petitioners. He would accordingly pray for dismissal of
the Petition.
8. I have also heard Mrs. Shrivastava, the learned AGP for
the Respondent-State. She would support the order passed by
k 7/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, (Land
Acquisition No.11) and pray for dismissal of the petition.
9. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
10. Land admeasuring 1.3280 Hectares in Gat No.697 (part)
has been acquired for construction of green field corridor
connecting Ahmadnagar - Solapur - Akkalkot, Maharashtra
Karnataka border. The compensation in respect of acquired land
is determined at Rs.98,80,660/-. It appears that notices were
issued to all the persons whose names appeared in revenue
records for claiming compensation in respect of the acquired
land. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 filed application on 21 November
2023 in prescribed format for disbursement of compensation. In
those proceedings, Petitioners raised objection to disbursement
of compensation to Respondent Nos.4 to 8. Accordingly, the
Competent Authority has heard both the parties and has
rejected the objection raised by Petitioners by passing order
dated 16 April 2024.
11. It is the contention of Petitioners that the Competent
Authority does not have jurisdiction to decide competing claims
between Petitioners and Respondent Nos.4 to 8 qua title in the
acquired land. Reliance is placed on Section 3-H of the National
Highways Act which provides thus:
k 8/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
3-H. Deposit and payment of amount.-
(1) The amount determined under section 3-G shall be deposited
by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by
rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent
authority before taking possession of the land.
(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited
under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the
Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons
entitled thereto.
(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount
deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall
determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the
amount payable to each of them.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount
or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part
thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to
the decision of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction within
the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.
(5) Where the amount determined under section 3-G by the
arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent
authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent. per
annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession
under section 3-D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.
(6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess
of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess
amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5)
shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as
may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government,
with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2)
to (4) shall apply to such deposit.
12. Thus, under sub-section (1) of Section 3-H of the Act the
amount of compensation is required to be deposited by the
Central Government with the Competent Authority before
taking possession of the land. The Competent Authority in turn
is required to pay the amount of compensation to the person or
persons entitled to such compensation. Sub-sections (3) and (4)
are relevant for deciding the issue at hand. Sub-section (3) deals
with the situation where several persons claim to have interest
k 9/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
in the amount of compensation deposited with the Competent
Authority and seek to invoke jurisdiction of the Competent
Authority to determine the persons who are entitled to receive
the compensation. Sub-section (4) deals with situation where
disputes arise about apportionment of the amount of
compensation or about the person to whom the same or part
thereof is payable where the Competent Authority is required to
refer dispute for decision to the Civil Court in whose jurisdiction
the land is situated.
13. Provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3-H of the
Act have been interpreted by several decisions of this Court.
Arun Trimbakrao Lokare (supra) involved raising of claim by
the Petitioner who was one of the co-owners of the land for
sharing the compensation. After hearing parties, the Competent
Authority had rejected Petitioner's claim. In the light of the
above position, the issue arose before Division Bench as to
whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to decide
competing claims of various persons towards share in the
compensation. The Division Bench took note of pari materia
provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well
as similar provisions in the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. This Court relied upon judgment of the
Apex Court in Sharada Devi vs. State of Bihar3 and held in
paragraphs 16 and 17 as under:
3 AIR 2003 SC 942
k 10/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
16. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statute that the
provisions of any statute are to be so interpreted as to give effect to
each of them to the extent possible without giving rise to any conflict
or overlapping. This principle of harmonious construction needs to be
applied in the matter before hand vis-a-vis sub-section (3) of section
3-H, while interpreting sub-section (3). Such application would lead
us to interpret these provisions in harmonious manner putting
neither of them otiose. A careful reading of these provisions would
reveal that when several persons are entitled to claim compensation,
the competent authority has power and jurisdiction to record an
opinion and determine the persons who are entitled to receive share/s
and only enables him to apportion the amount of compensation
amongst them according to the share they are entitled to. As against
this, sub-section (4) contemplates a situation where the dispute is
raised as to the entitlement of the compensation by several persons
and the jurisdiction to decide such dispute is conferred upon the
Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. In other words,
whenever there is dispute raised by any person as to the right to
receive either the whole or portion of the compensation, the
competent authority is obliged to refer the matter to the Principal
Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
17. In view of such legal position, when sub-section (4) of section 3-H
specifically requires the dispute as to entitlement to receive
compensation determined under section 3-G of the Act to be referred
to and decided by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, it
by implication necessarily excludes jurisdiction of the competent
Authority which is entitled to merely decide the point of
apportionment of the compensation amongst several persons under
sub-section (3) of section 3-H. Such interpretation, in our view,
strikes a balance between sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of
section 3-H of the Act and make them operative in separate spheres.
The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, on these
lines therefore deserves to the accepted.
14. In Rajaram Waman Rane (supra) another Division
Bench of this Court has held in paragraph 18 as under:
18 Thus, the scheme of Section 3H of the said Act consists of
two steps divided into two sub-sections, i.e. sub-section (3) and
sub-section (4) which cannot be read disjunctively. One cannot
argue that, only dispute as to apportionment of the amount is
referable to Civil Court and not the dispute as to entitlement. If
such a argument is accepted, then a person whose entitlement
is negated by the Competent Authority may have to approach
k 11/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
the Civil Court and only thereafter lay the claim in the
compensation. It may be stated, such a interpretation would
defeat the rights of legitimate claimants whose names were not
recorded in the Revenue records, may be for any reason. If such
a claimant asserts his rights in the land which is under
acquisition, on the basis of some evidence which prima-facie
discloses his interest, his claim cannot be brushed aside.
Therefore, even if competent authority rejects his "entitlement",
such a finding recorded by the authority is not conclusive and
would not attain finality. It is to be noted that, under sub-
section (4) nature of disputes referable to Civil Court also
includes a dispute as "to any person to whom the same or any
part thereof is payable" (emphasis supplied). In other words, if
entitlement of claimant is rejected, still it would be an issue
referable to a Civil Court as it would be covered by the
expression "issue as to any person to whom the same is payable"
within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 3H. In our
opinion, documents placed on record by the petitioners in
support of their claim, prima-facie disclose their right. In view
of this, we are of the view that, the order passed by the
Competent Authority, inter-alia, refusing to refer the dispute as
to entitlement to claim interest in the compensation runs
contrary to the scheme of provisions of sub-section (3) and (4) of
Section 3H of the National Highways Act.
15. Mr. Shah has strenuously relied on judgment in Rajaram
Waman Rane (supra) in support of his contention that even a
dispute raised by a claimant not confined to mere
apportionment, also needs to be compulsorily referred to Civil
Court under provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 3-H of the
Act.
16. However, in Rajaram Waman Rane, the Division Bench
has held that "In our opinion, documents placed on record by the
petitioners in support of their claim, prima-facie disclose their
right". Thus the judgment in Rajaram Waman Rane directing
k 12/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
reference of dispute to Civil Court is rendered after recording a
prima facie finding that the Petitioner therein had demonstrable
case of right in acquired land.
17. Petitioners' case essentially relates to the alleged error
effected in the consolidation scheme which was implemented in
village Mandargi in the year 1977. It would be apposite to
reproduce the exact grievance of the Petitioners as raised before
the Competent Authority in paragraphs 4 and 5 of their
objection:
"४) राष्ट्रीय महामार्ग अधि नि यम म ील तरतुदी ुसार सदर नि वाड्यातील शेतजमी ी
म्हणजेच मौजे मैंदर्ग येथील मुळ शेतजमी ी सर्व्हेह$ ं . ३५१/१, ३५१/२, ३५१/३, ३४२,
३४३/२, ३४६/१ व ३४६/२ या शेतजमी ी सदर हरकतदार यांच्या केसूर घराण्यातील
होत्या हरकतदार यांचे घराण्यातील मुळ पुरुष भि6मशा सिसध्दप्पा केसूर व च मलप्पा सिसध्दप्पा
केसूर हे दोघे 6ाऊ होते. एकत्र हिंहद ु कुटू ंबातील वाटणीमध्ये शेतजमी ी सव्र्र्व्हेहे ं. ३५१/२,
३४२, ३४६/२ या शेतजमी ी-स्वः-भि6मशा-सिसध्दप्पा केसूर यांच्या वाटणीस आले ल्या होत्या
तर शेतजमी ी सव्र्र्व्हेहे ं.३५१/१, ३५१/३, ३४१, ३४५/२ शेतजमी ी स्व. च मलप्पा
सिसध्दप्पा केसूर यांच्या निहश्श्यास निदले ल्या होत्या. मैंदर्ग र्गावाची एकत्रीकरण योज ा स
१९७७ साली राबनिवण्यात आली होती.
५) सदर मैंदर्ग र्गावची एकत्रीकरण योज ा राबनिवता ा एकत्रीकरण अधि काऱ्याकडू
जमी ीचे अदलाबदल करता ा जर चुकी े जी चुक झाले ली होती, त्याबाबत स्व. भि6मशा
सिसध्दप्पा केसूर यां ी मा. जमाबंदी आयुक्त व संचालक, 6ुमी अभि6ले ख, महाराष्ट्र राज्य पुणे
यांच्याकडे निद.२८/०२/१९७६ रोजी ले खी तक्रारी अज देऊ त्याबद्दलची एकत्रीकरण
अधि काऱ्याची चुक लक्षात आणू निदले ली होती. सदर तक्रारीच्याआ ारे मा. सहाय्यक
एकत्रीकरण अधि कारी यां ी या अजातील वाद निवषय जमी ीबाबत स १९४७ चा मुंबईचा
तुकडे पाडण्यास म ाई करण्याबाबत व त्याचे एकत्रीकरणेबाबत कायदा अन्वये जमी ींचे
टक्केवारी पत्रक तयार करु एकत्रीकरण करण्यापुव च्या जमी ी व खातेदार तसचे एकत्रीकरणे
केल्या ंतरचे जमी ी व खातेदार याबाबतचा अहवाल सादर केले ला होता. सदर अजावरु
ले खी तक्रारीवरु मा. जमाबंदी आयुक्त, पुणे यां ी सदरची चुक लक्षात आल्या ंतर सदरची
एकत्रीकरण व र्गट बां णी योज ेबाबत निद. १८/०४/१९७९ रोजी चौकशी घेऊ तसेच स्व.
भि6मशा केसूर वर्गैरे यांचे जाबजबाब घेऊ सदर हरकतदार यांच्या शेतजमी ीबाबत झाले ली
चुकीची दरु ु स्ती करण्याबाबत आदेश करु मा. जमाबंदी आयुक्त, पुणे यां ी
निद.०७/०५/१९८३ रोजी मा. एकत्रीकरण अधि कारी, सोलापूर यां ा ले खी आदेश करु
सदरच्या हरकतदार यांच्या वाद शेतजमी ीबाबतची हरकत मंजूर करु दरु ु स्त योज ा मंजूर
करण्यात आल्याचे कळनिवले . तसेच निद.१६/०५/१९८३ रोजी मा. एकत्रीकरण अधि कारी,
k 13/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
सांर्गली यां ी सदर दरु ु स्ती एकत्रीकरण योज ाबाबत कार्गदपत्रे देखील पाठनिवले ले होते. परंतू
सदरचा दरु ु स्तीचा आदेश होवू देखील त्याचा अंमल अभि6ले खात महसूल कायालयात
घेण्यात आला ाही. तसेच मैंदर्ग र्गावाच्या मुळ मंजूर योज ेमध्ये सदरचे र्गट र्व्हेहते तर
निवषयांकीत दरु ु स्ती योज ेमध्ये एकत्रीकरण योज ा लार्गू झाल्या ंतर अस्तिस्तत्वात आले ले
निव र्गट ं.९५१, ९५२ आले ले असता ा त्यापैकी शेतजमी र्गट ं.९५१ हा दरु ु स्ती
योज ेअन्वये तयार झाले ला र्गट ं.९५१ पुव च अन्य एका योज ेमुळे निद.२०/१२/१९८१
फेर ं.३८५ अन्वये तयार झाले ला होता त्यामुळे सदर निव दरु ु स्ती योज ेतील र्गट ं.९५१
व ९५२ ऐवजी त्यास र्गट ं.९५२ व ९५३ असे र्गट ंबर देणे र्गरजेचे असता ा र्गट ं. ९५१
हा दबु ार देण्यात आले ला आहे. त्यामुळे मुळ दरु
ु स्ती योज ेत दरु ु स्ती करणे र्गरजेचे आहे, असे
पत्र देखील निद.१८/०८/२०२३ रोजी मा. उपअधि क्षक, 6ुमी अभि6ले ख यां ी सदर वरील
जमी ींचा नि वाडा तयार होण्यापुव मा. उपअधि क्षक, 6ुमी अभि6ले ख, अक्कलकोट यां ी
कळनिवले होते व आहे. सदर मा. एकत्रीकरण अधि कारी यां ी दरु ु स्ती योज ा हरकतीची
सु ावणी घेऊ झाले ली चुक लक्षात आल्या ंतर तशी दरु ु स्ती केल्या ंतर मुंबईचा जमी ीचा
तुकडे पाडण्यास प्रधितबं करण्याबाबत व त्याचे एकत्रीकरण करण्याबाबत अधि नि यम १९४७
म ील नि यम १८अ म ील मु ा -५ (अ) प्रमाणे स्व. भि6मशा सिसध्दप्पा केसूर तसेच स्व.
च मलप्पा सिसध्दप्पा केसूर व स्व. श्री. रेवप्पा कलप्पा निहप्परर्गी यां ा जमी ीचे कबजा
मार्गणीबाबत निद.१७/१०/१९८३ रोजीचे अधि सूच े ुसार मार्गणी करु निद.१७/०७/१९८४
रोजी कबजेपावती देणेबाबत प्रधितज्ञापण तयार केले असता सदर दरु ु स्तीप्रमाणे जमी ीचा
कब्जा पूवीपासू स्व. च मलप्पा सिसध्दप्पा केसुर व श्री. रेवप्पा कलप्पा निहप्परर्गी यांचेकडे
कायम होता व आहे."
18. Thus, Petitioners' case is that there was an error in
implementing the consolidation scheme and that proceedings
were initiated on 28 February 1976 for correction of that error
and order was passed by Settlement Commissioner on 7 May
1983. Petitioners also relied upon communication dated 16 May
1983 of Consolidation Officer, Sangli forwarding the papers
relating to corrected Consolidation Scheme. However, according
to Petitioners though the error was corrected by the
Consolidation Officer, effect thereto was not given in revenue
records. Thus, the entire dispute between Petitioners and
vendors of Respondent Nos.4 to 8 relate to the alleged error in
implementation of the Consolidation Scheme in the year 1977.
Under provisions of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Prevention
of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947
k 14/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
(Consolidation Act), jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.
Section 36A of the Consolidation Act provides thus:
36A. Bar of jurisdiction.--
(1) No Civil Court or Mamlatdars Court shall have jurisdiction to
settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act
required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the State Government
or any officer or authority.
(2) No order of the State Government or any such officer or authority
made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil, Criminal or
Mamlatdars Court.
19. Section 31A of the Consolidation Act confers jurisdiction on
the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Commissioner to
correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the scheme and
provides thus:
31A. Correction of clerical ad arithmetical mistake in scheme.
If, after a scheme has come into force, it appears to the Settlement
Commissioner that the scheme is defective on account of any clerical
or arithmetical mistake or error arising therein from any accidental
slip or omission, and he is satisfied that the correction of such
mistake or error would not vary the scheme in any material
particular, he may by order in writing correct such mistake or error
and publish his order in the pre scribed manner.
20. Section 33 of the Consolidation Act confers power on the
Settlement Commissioner to vary or revoke the scheme
published and confirmed in accordance with the Consolidation
Act. Section 33 of the Consolidation Act provides thus:
33. Power to vary or revoke scheme.--
A scheme for the consolidation of holding confirmed under this Act
may at any time be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme
prepared, published and confirmed in accordance with this Act.
21. Thus, Consolidation Act is a complete Code in itself
relating to any issue arising out of implementation of
k 15/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
Consolidation Scheme. All the grievances of parties relating to
implementation of the Consolidation Scheme must be resolved
within the frame-work of Consolidation Act and there is no scope
for invoking jurisdiction of Civil Court to raise any grievance
relating to alleged error in implementation of the Consolidation
Scheme.
22. The grievance of the Petitioners is required to be viewed in
the light of the provisions of Consolidation Act, which seek to
bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide any issue relating to
alleged errors in the Consolidation Scheme. If this is the position
in law, the issue here is whether the Civil Court would be in a
position to decide title dispute between the Petitioners and
vendors of Respondent Nos.4 to 8 relating to the acquired land?
The answer to the issue prima facie appears to be in the negative
considering provisions of Section 36A of the Consolidation Act.
Mr. Shah has attempted to salvage the situation by contending
that the error in the Consolidation Scheme is already corrected
by passing order dated 7 May 1983 read with communication
dated 16 May 1983. However, this is Petitioners' version and
admittedly effect was not given to the said order dated 7 May
1983 of Settlement Commissioner or communication dated 16
May 1983 of the Consolidation Officer. Thus, the proceedings still
remained within the bounds of the Consolidation Act and the
alleged error in implementation of the Consolidation Scheme has
not really been corrected. In the light of this position, Civil
Court's jurisdiction to entertain dispute relating to erroneous
k 16/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
implementation of Consolidation Scheme is clearly questionable
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
23. Another vital position in the present case is that the land
has been purchased by Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 vide registered
Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001. After execution of the
registered Sale Deed dated 8 November 2001, the names of
Respondent Nos.4 to 8 were apparently mutated to the revenue
records. Petitioners, who now claim title in respect of the
purchased land, never thought of challenging the Sale Deed
dated 8 November 2001. The Sale Deed was required to be
challenged within the prescribed period of limitation. It is sought
to be suggested by Mr. Shah that execution of Sale Deed was not
in the knowledge of the Petitioners and that they acquired
knowledge about its execution only at the time of initiation of
acquisition proceedings.
24. In the light of above peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, I am unable to record a prima facie finding as was
done by the Division Bench in Rajaram Waman Rane (supra)
that Petitioners have made out demonstrable case of title in
respect of the acquired land.
25. This Court is called upon to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is corrective in
nature. It is well settled position of law that in exercise of extra-
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
k 17/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
India, the High Court need not correct every error of law
especially when the final conclusion reached by authority is
acceptable. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment
of the Apex Court in Garment Craft V/s. Prakash Chand
Goel4 in which the Apex Court has held in paragraph 15 as
under:
15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the
view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be
sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the
limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory
jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate,
reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under
challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every
error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or
can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own
decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or
tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional
jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse,
violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power
under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like
when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so
perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a
conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic
that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no
miscarriage of justice.
26. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
present case, the issue that arises for consideration is whether
this Court can be called upon to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order dated 16 April 2024
when Petitioners are unable to make out demonstrable prima
facie case of title in respect of the acquired land. There are two
clear factors against the Petitioners for not directing a reference
to the Civil Court under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. Firstly
Petitioners will have to ultimately get the Consolidation Scheme
4 (2022) 4 SCC 181
k 18/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
corrected with a view to claim title in respect of the acquired
land and correction of Consolidation Scheme cannot be effected
in a Reference made to the Civil Court under Section 3-H(4) of
the Act. Secondly, Petitioners have maintained silence about Sale
Deed of acquired land executed in favour of Respondent Nos.4 to
8 for over 20 years. Thus what cannot be directly achieved by
filing a suit for setting up challenge to the Sale Deed dated 8
November 2001 is now sought to be indirectly achieved by
seeking a reference to the Civil Court under Section 3-H(4) of the
Act. Petitioners claim for compensation in the acquired land
cannot be allowed unless Civil Court arrives at a conclusion that
the Sale Deed executed in favour of Respondent Nos.4 to 8 is
invalid and not binding on the Petitioners. If Petitioners were to
file a suit in the year 2022 challenging Sale Deed dated 8
November 2001 such challenge would have been susceptible to
the objection of limitation as the suit was required to be
instituted within a period of three years from the date of
execution of the Sale Deed or within three years of acquisition of
knowledge about execution of Sale Deed. As observed above,
names of the Respondent Nos.4 to 8 were mutated to the revenue
records consequent to execution of Sale Deed dated 8 November
2001 which would in ordinary case would have enabled the
Petitioners to acquire knowledge about execution of the said Sale
Deed.
27. On account of the above twin difficulties, which the
Petitioners will have to surmount, before seeking claim in respect
of compensation for acquired land, in my view, a routine order of
k 19/19 10_wp_6463.24_J_as.doc
reference under provisions of Section 3-H(4) of the Act is not
warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case. Refusal of reference under Section 3-H(4) of the Act would
not leave Petitioners remediless. They can always file a civil suit
claiming title in respect of the acquired land and claim a share in
the amount of compensation. In the light of the above peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to
interfere in the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the
Petition must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of the
Petition however shall not come in the way of Petitioners filing a
Civil Suit claiming title in respect of the acquired land. Such suit
shall be decided uninfluenced by any of the observations made by
this Court in the present judgment.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
28. After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioners seeks continuation of interim order
passed by this Court on 30 April 2024 by which this Court had
stayed the disbursement of the compensation amount.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interim
order shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2025.03.21
15:18:42 +0530
