- (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 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 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 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 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.
(2.) 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 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 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. 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.
(3.) 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.;