NOOR SK. BHAIKANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                        [2011] 7 S.C.R. 1070


A                       NOOR SK. BHAIKAN
                                   v.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No.103 of 2002)
                            JULY 7, 2011
B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

         RESETTLEMENT ACT, 1965:

c         Allotment of agricultural land to landowner whose land
    had been acquired under Land Acquisition Act-Mistake in
     marking boundaries of land, and possession of wrong
     agricultural land handed over to allottee-Order of revenue
    authorities to allot alternative /and-Held: The right of the
0   allottee was to seek agricultural land under the provisions of
    the Re~Settlement Act and in so far as the right was protected,
    the allottee could not ask for a particular land-The grant of
    relief in relation to the alternate land cannot be faulted with
    inasmuch as if there was a mistake committed by the
E   Revenue Authorities which was subsequently corrected, no
    advantage can be claimed by the al/ottee in that regard - The
    land which was not subject matter of the acquisition could not
    be treated as the land having been offered to the al/ottee
    validly and in accordance with law - The High Court has
    passed multifold directions in relation to granting of alternate
F   land and conducting of an enquiry by the competent authority
    as well - Thus, the directions sufficiently take care of the
    interest of the allottee - As far as the claim of compensation
    by the allottee with regard to improvement made on the land
    is concerned, again it is for the Government to decide as per
G   its policy-Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

      The appellant was allotted and handed over
  possession of 1.61 hectares of land in Survey Nos. 78/2
  (81 'are') and 182/2 (81 'are') by order dated 25.8.1982
H                           1070
 NOOR SK. BHAIKAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1071
                  & ORS.
pursuant to the certificate dated 3.8.1982 issued to him        A
being a project affected person, as his house and
agricultural lands had been acquired in terms of the
Notification u/s 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1897 in
respect of which the award was made on 16.7.1979.
                                                                B
     Later, on an application filed by respondent No.5
before the Collector pointing out that the land which was
handed over to the appellant on 25.8.1982 was in fact from
survey No. 7S/1 and not from Survey No. 78/2 and the said
land was not even the subject matter of the acquisition,
the Collector directed an inquiry. Consequently, it was         C
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 possessi·on of wrong agricultural land
was handed over to the appellant on 23.8.1982. The              D
Collector, therefore, by order dated 28.9.1987 directed
that the area allotted to the appellant as per original order
dated 23.8.1982 needed a change. Accordingly, the
Tehsildar issued an' order to the Circle Inspector on
5.10.1987 to take corrective steps. The appellant               E
challenged the order in a writ petition before the High
Cou'rt, which·though did not accept the claim of the
appellant, but while finally disposing of the writ petition
directed the State Authorities inter alia to allot the
alternative land in Survey No. 23/1 to the appellant. The       F
order was challenged by the appellant in the instant
appeal

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1. The right of the appellant was to seek           G
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
                                                                H
    1072   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A land which was in dispute has rightly not been
  considered to be a sufficient ground for requiring the
  Court to grant the relief prayed for. The grant of relief in
  relation to the alternate land cannot be faulted with
  inasmuch as if there was a mistake committed by the
B Revenue Authorities which was subsequently corrected,
  no advantage can be claimed by the appellant 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
c been offered to the appellant validly and in accordance
  with law. [para 5] [1078-C-F]

       1.2. 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,
D 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. The operative part of the judgment, not only
  gives. appropriate relief to the appellant but also takes
E care of the correction of errors and enquiry into the
  relevant issues by the authorities concerned. There is
  hardly any scope for this Court to interfere with the
  findings recorded by the High Court. [para 5-6] [1078-G-
  H; 1079-A]
F
        1.3. As far as the claim of compensation placed by
   the appellant with regard to the improvement made on the
   land is concerned, again it has been left for the
  ·Government to decide as per its policy. It is significant to
   note that for all this period, the appellant has been
G reaping benefits from the land to the exclusion of others.
   [para 6) [1079-A-B]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 103
    of 2002.
H
·NOOR SK. BHAIKAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1073
                  & ORS.
                                                                          '
      From the Judgment & Order dated 16.8.2001 of the High           A
 Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ
 Petition No. 1587 of 1987.

     Shakil Ahmed Syed, Taiyab Khan, Firasat Ali for the
 Appellant.                                                           B

      Asha G. Nair, Himanshu Munshi for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SWATANTER KUMAR, J. The present appeal is directed              C
  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 avermentthat his property, i.e. a house at
. Pimpalwadi, Taluka Paithan and agricultural land in Survey No.      D
  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 Act was       E
  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        F
   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   G
  suit was dismissed by the trial court and so was the appeal
  against the said judgment and 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.       H
    1074    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A While approaching the Collector, the landlady namely, Sow.
  Shantabai Ramesh Savela 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
s 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 February, 1986 directing the Tehsildar,
  Ambad to take suitable action so as to put the original owner
c 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. 7812, the Circle Inspector had committed an
0
  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
E 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
F 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,
G a mistake was committed by the Circle Inspector and he did
  not mark the boundaries properly which called for 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
H averments and the High Court while rejecting the contentions
 NOOR SK. BHAIKAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1075
       & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
raised on behalf of the appellant also rejected the arguments          A
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            B
the same. Finally, the Court noticed that the appellant was put
 into possession of the land and he 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.      C
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:
                                                                       D
      "lri the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim order
      is vacated. We directthe respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to take
      appropriate steps to allot the alternative land in Survey No.
    · 23/1 of village mahakala in Ambad taluka to the petitioner.
     However, before the petitioner is put in possession of the        E
      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 mpnner cause
      any disturbance to the Madarsa/Mosque and this                   F
      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           G
    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.
                                                                       H
    1076    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A             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
8       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
c       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.

D              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 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
E       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
F       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.

G             Rule discharged with no orders as to costs."

       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
H representatives of the deceased-respondent no.5 on record. IA
 NOOR SK. BHAIKAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1077
       & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

No. 2/2004 was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the      A
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   B
substitution of the legal representatives is condoned and the
representatives of the 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      C
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           D
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 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    E
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      F
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 for i.t to be read in evidence. Thus, we do          G
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.                    H
    1078     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2011] 7 S.C.R. .


A       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 to
B 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
c 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
0 could not ask for a particular land. Some distance between the
  offered land and the land which 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
E 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
F accordance with law.

        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
G 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
H gives appropriate relief to the appellant but also takes care of
 NOOR SK. BHAIKAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1079
       & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)

the correction of errors and enquiry into the relevant issues by     A
the concerned authorities. As far as the claim of compensation
placed by the appellant is 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         B
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,     C
what is fhe 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
already completed, should be completed as expeditiously as           D
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.                                                            E

R.P.                                         Appeal dismissed.