REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.103 of 2002

NOOR SK. BHIKAN         … Appellant Versus

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.       … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1

The  present  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  

dated  16th August,  2001  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  of  Bombay  Bench  at  Aurangabad,  declining  the  

reliefs  prayed  for  by  the  appellant,  however,  still  issuing  

certain directions.   The appellant  had approached the  High  

Court  with  the  averment  that  his  property,  i.e.  a  house  at  

Pimpalwadi,  Taluka Paithan and agricultural  land in Survey  

No. 170 was acquired for Jaikwadi Project and he thus became  

a  project  affected  person.   The  concerned  authorities  had  

issued  a  certificate  dated  3rd August,  1982  to  him  in  this  

regard.  After issuance of the notification under Section 4 of  

the Land Acquisition Act, a declaration under Section 6 of the  

2

Act was published on 16th January, 1975 and the award was  

made on 16th July, 1979.  Pursuant to the certificate issued in  

favour of the appellant, he was allotted 1.61 hectares of land  

from  two  different  survey  nos.,  namely,  78/2  (81  are)  and  

182/2  (81  are)  as  per  the  order  dated  23rd August,  1982.  

Possession of this land was handed over to him.  The appellant  

deposited  the  occupancy  price  and  even  the  mutation  was  

effected  in  his  name.   However,  in  the  meanwhile,  the  

respondent no.5, namely Sow. Shantabai Ramesh Savele filed  

a regular suit in the Civil Court for a declaration in relation to  

the  land in question.   This  suit  was dismissed by the  trial  

court and so was the appeal against the said judgment and  

3

decree dated 25th October, 1985.  During the pendency of the  

appeal  before  the  High  Court,  the  said  respondent  filed  

another suit in the Court at Ambad with an application for  

injunction, which was also dismissed.  While approaching the  

Collector,  the  landlady  namely,  Sow.  Shantabai  Ramesh  

Savele respondent no.5 submitted an application pointing out  

that the land which was handed over to the appellant herein  

on 25th August, 1982 was in fact survey no. 78/1 and not from  

survey no.78/2.  That land was not even the subject matter of  

the acquisition which culminated into the Award dated 16th  

July, 1979.  The Collector, therefore, directed an enquiry and  

based on the said enquiry report, passed an order dated 28th  

4

February,  1986  directing  the  Tehsildar,  Ambad  to  take  

suitable action so as to put the original owner in possession of  

the subject agricultural land.  The Tehsildar issued a notice  

for handing over the possession and for taking proceedings in  

furtherance thereto.  The Collector subsequently verified the  

representation  made  by  the  landlady  and  found  that  while  

handing over possession of 81 ares of land purportedly out of  

survey no. 78/2, the Circle Inspector had committed an error  

in  marking  the  boundaries  and  possession  of  wrong  

agricultural  land was handed  over  to  the  appellant  on 23rd  

August, 1982.  The Collector being satisfied about the mistake  

committed  by  the  Circle  Inspector,  by  his  order  dated  28th  

5

September,  1987  ordered  that  the  area  allotted  to  the  

appellant  as per the original  order dated 23rd August,  1982  

needed  a  change.   The  Tehsildar,  in  furtherance  thereto,  

issued an order to the Circle Inspector on 5th October, 1987 to  

take corrective  steps.   The appellant  herein approached the  

High  Court  challenging  the  notices  and  he  averred  that  

remained in possession of the land and even an interim order  

was passed in his favour in the said petition.   

Before the High Court, the stand of the respondents was  

that  at  the  time  of  handing  over  the  possession  to  the  

appellant,  a  mistake was committed by the Circle  Inspector  

and he did not mark the boundaries properly which called for  

6

the corrective proceedings and this mistake was pointed out  

by the Collector on 6th February, 1986 on an application by  

respondent  no.5.   However,  the  appellant  in  the  rejoinder  

maintained his averments and the High Court while rejecting  

the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant also rejected  

the arguments in equity that the appellant had acted as per  

the allotment order and he has been put in possession of the  

land  in  question  by  the  Revenue  authorities  and  now  his  

position could not be altered and he could not be deprived of  

the agricultural land on which he has invested a good amount  

of funds for developing the same.  Finally, the Court noticed  

that the appellant was put into possession of the land and he  

7

had enjoyed the fruits thereof.  Thus, the plea of investment  

would  not  enhance  the  value  of  the  submissions  made  on  

behalf of the appellant inasmuch as he could not continue to  

claim possession of the land which was not the subject matter  

of the acquisition itself.   The claim of the appellant had not  

been accepted by the Court but still it gave alternative relief to  

the  appellant.   It  will  be  appropriate  for  us  to  refer  to  the  

relevant paragraphs of the judgment finally disposing of the  

writ petition:

“In the result,  the Writ Petition is dismissed.  Interim  order  is  vacated.   We  direct  the  respondents  Nos.  1  to  4  to  take  appropriate  steps to allot the alternative land in Survey No.  

8

23/1 of village mahakala in Ambad taluka to  the petitioner.  However, before the petitioner  is put in possession of the alternative land, he  shall  hand  over  vacant  and  peaceful  possession of the subject land, except the land  on  which  Madarsa/Mosque  is  located.   The  respondent No.5 has agreed before us that she  shall  not  in  any  manner  cause  any  disturbance to the Madarsa/Mosque and this  undertaking  would  be  binding  on  her  successors as well.

We clarify  that  the  allotment  order  and  possession  of  the  alternative  land  would  be  done first  in  favour  of  the  petitioner  and he  shall submit of two weeks from today, to the  effect that he shall hand over the possession of  the subject land i.e. land in Survey Nos. 78/1  to the respondent no.5 as soon as the standing  sugar  cane crop is  harvested or  in any case  before 31.12,2001 whichever is earlier.

9

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  respondent  No.5  has  received  compensation  almost  20  years ago, we do not find any case to grant any  other compensation for the part of the land on  which  Madarsa/Mosque  is  located  and  the  boundaries of this land will be demarcated by  Talathi  of  Ambad  within  the  period  of  two  weeks  from  today  and  in  presence  of  the  petitioner, respondent No.5 and the Member of  the Village Panchayat concerned.

At this stage, Sh. Kadar, learned counsel  for the petitioner prayed for compensation for  construction of  house and irrigation facilities  etc.  We are not inclined to consider the same  and  it  would  be  appropriate  that  the  State  government decides this issue in keeping with  the policy that may be in vogue as at present.

We are also satisfied that this is a fit case  where  an enquiry  is  required to  be  directed.  We accordingly  direct  the  Collector,  Jalna to  

10

conduct  an enquiry  as to how the  petitioner  came  to  be  allotted  the  land which  was  not  subject  matter of  the acquisition proceedings  and  fix  the  responsibility  on  the  officer/s  concerned.  Needless to mention, the collector  shall  proceed against  such officer/s who are  found guilty in the enquiry findings, as per the  provisions  of  the  Maharashtra  Civil  Services  (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.  We also clarify  that our order will not come in the way of the  collector to enquire into the issue of allotment  

of excess land to the petitioner and his family  members  pursuant  to  the  project  affected  certificate dated 3.8.1982 and take appropriate  steps as may be permissible in law.

Rule  discharged  with  no  orders  as  to  costs.”

11

It  appears  that  during  the  pendency  of  the  present  

appeal,  respondent no.5, died on 12th December, 2003.  An  

application  being  IA  No.  1/2004,  was  filed  for  bringing  the  

legal  representatives  of  the  deceased-respondent  no.5  on  

record.    IA No. 2/2004 was also filed for condonation of delay  

in  filing  the  application  for  substitution  of  the  legal  

representatives  of  the  said  deceased-respondent  no.5.   No  

reply  has  been  filed  till  date  and  in  any  case,  there  is  no  

opposition to these applications before us.  Consequently, both  

these applications are allowed, subject to just exceptions. The  

delay  in  filing  the  application  for  substitution  of  the  legal  

representatives  is  condoned  and  the  representatives  of  the  

12

deceased-respondent  no.5  as  stated  in  paragraph  3  of  the  

application are permitted to be brought on record.  Liberty to  

file amended memo of parties is granted.

Another application was also filed being IA No. 4/2004  

for placing on record a copy of the judgment passed by the  

Joint  Civil  Judge  (Senior  Division)  at  Jalna  in  RCS  No.  

332/2001 entitled Rambhau S/o Narayan Rokde  v.  State of   

Maharashtra  and  Anr.   All  that  has  been  averred  in  this  

application is that the said suit has been decided by the Court  

on 16th April, 2002 and has a bearing on the issues involved in  

the present matter.  Nothing has been averred as to how this  

judgment has any bearing on any of the issues involved in the  

13

present case as none of the parties to the present appeal are  

parties to that suit, except the State.  It is in no way clear that  

the subject  matter  of  that  suit  is  the subject  matter  of  the  

present appeal.  In any case, the judgment was pronounced on  

16th April, 2002 while the present application appears to have  

been  filed  in  2008.    No  steps  were  taken  to  bring  this  

judgment  on  record  of  this  Court  for  all  that  period.   The  

counsel appearing for the applicant has not been able to show  

us the relevancy of that document to the present case.  In fact,  

even  in  the  application  there  is  no  averment  as  to  the  

relevancy  and  necessity  of  the  document  to  be  brought  on  

record by way of additional evidence in the present case and  

14

for  it  to  be  read in  evidence.   Thus,  we do not  consider  it  

appropriate  and  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  allow  this  

application.  Consequently, the same is dismissed.  However,  

we make it clear that the parties concerned will be at liberty to  

take  steps  against  that  judgment  and  decree  as  may  be  

permissible to them in accordance with law.

Reverting back to the merits of the present case, the High  

Court did not accept the contentions raised on behalf of the  

appellant in regard to the reduction of the land in question.  

However, the Court granted relief to the appellant in relation  

to an alternative site.  There is hardly any scope for this Court  

15

to  interfere  with  the  findings  recorded  by  the  High  Court.  

While  referring  to  the  proposals  which  were  made  by  the  

respondents during the pendency of the case, the High Court  

had concluded that the offer did not vest the appellant with  

any  indefeasible  right  to  enforce  those  options.   The  offers  

were made so as to find out what would be the best applicable  

to the facts and circumstances of the case and it could not be  

construed that they were absolute in nature.  The right of the  

appellant was to seek agricultural land under the provisions of  

the Re-Settlement Act, 1965 and in so far as that right was  

protected, the appellant could not ask for a particular land.  

Some distance between the offered land and the land which  

16

was  in  dispute  has  rightly  not  been  considered  to  be  a  

sufficient  ground for  requiring  the  Court  to  grant  the  relief  

prayed for in its terms.  The grant of relief in relation to the  

alternate land cannot be faulted with inasmuch as if there was  

a mistake committed by the Revenue Authorities which was  

subsequently corrected, no advantage can be claimed by the  

petitioner in that regard, particularly when the mistake was in  

relation to a root controversy.  The land which was not subject  

matter  of  the  acquisition  could  not  be  treated  as  the  land  

having been offered to the appellant validly and in accordance  

with law.

17

The  High  Court  has  passed  multifold  directions  in  

relation to  granting  of  alternate  land and conducting  of  an  

enquiry  by  the  competent  authority  as  well.   Thus,  the  

directions sufficiently take care of the interest of the appellant.  

The  judgment  of  the  High  Court  is  well-reasoned and even  

grants the appropriate relief to the appellant.  In fact, we fail to  

understand the necessity for the appellant to file the present  

appeal.  The operative part of the judgment, which we have  

afore-reproduced,  not  only  gives  appropriate  relief  to  the  

appellant but also takes care of the correction of errors and  

enquiry into the relevant issues by the concerned authorities.  

As far as the claim of compensation placed by the appellant is  

18

concerned, again it has been left for the Government to decide  

as per its policy.  One fact which cannot be lost sight of by this  

Court is that for all this period, the appellant has been reaping  

benefits from the land to the exclusion of others.  

In view of the fact that none of the counsel appearing for  

the parties could confirm whether the directions issued by the  

Court have been implemented in their entirety or not, and if  

so,  what  is  the  stage  of  such  implementation.  In  these  

circumstances, while dismissing the present appeal as being  

without  any  merit,  we  issue  specific  directions  to  the  

respondents and all authorities concerned that the action in  

furtherance to the directions issued by the High Court, if not  

19

already completed,  should be completed as expeditiously  as  

possible  and  the  compliance  thereto  reported  to  the  High  

Court without any further delay.

The appeal is dismissed, however, without any order as  

to costs.

....................................J.  [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

....................................J.  [Swatanter Kumar]

New Delhi;

20

July 7, 2011.

21