M.L. Dudhat, J. - (1.) THIS appeal and the cross appeal are filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986. In the said judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 given by the learned District Judge, the learned District Judge has disposed of in all 79 Land Acquisition References. Since in all these matters there is a common question of fact and common question of law arise for consideration, we are disposing of these matters by the judgment as in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 with First Appeal No. 741 of 1994. Ratio of the judgment given by us will be applicable to all other First Appeals and/or Cross Objections.
(2.) FEW facts which are material for the purpose of disposing of these first appeals are as under. Appellant No. 2 State of Maharashtra issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for the sake of brevity) for the purpose of acquisition of the land bearing Survey No. 205 admeasuring 67 Acres -25 Gunthas -12 Annas, situated at Shiva Taluka, Uran, Dist. Raigad. Respondents -Claimants claimed the ownership of the said lands where they were carrying on salt works known as "Ghatacha Salt Works". Notification issued under section 4 of the said Act was published in the Official Gazette on 3rd February 1970. Thereafter on 24th May 1971, Notification under section 6 of the said Act was published. However, on 26th February 1973, the said notification issued under section 6 of the said Act was cancelled and on the same day a fresh notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued declaring the intention of the Government of Maharashtra to acquire all leasehold and other outstanding interests of the persons in the lands of the Central and State Governments. Thereafter on 11th December 1975, appellant No. 2 issued notification under section 6 of the said Act. The claimants filed their ad hoc claims on 25th May 1976. The claimants in the claims claimed ownership of the lands and accordingly valued their claims. On 31st October 1983, notice under sub -sections (3) and (4) of section 9 of the said Act was issued and in pursuance of the said notice, respondents -claimants filed their claims for compensation. On 29th September 1984, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre III, Urban, passed an award under section 11 of the said Act. By the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer, declined to grant any compensation to the respondents -claimants on the ground that they were not the owners and that the Union of India i.e. Appellant No. 2 was the owner of the said land. On 5th October 1984, Special Land Acquisition Officer took the possession of the acquired land from the Salt Department of the Union of India. Respondents -claimants filed reference under section 18 of the said act on 12th November 1984. Respondents -claimants in December 1984 also filed Writ Petition No. 4283 of 1984 in this High Court challenging the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 and also the award passed under section 11 of the said Act. On 5th/6th August 1985, the said writ petition was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court. However, while rejecting the aforesaid writ petition, the High Court observed that the reference under section 18 of the said Act is pending in the Civil Court in which the contentions as raised by the respondents -claimants (who were petitioners in that writ petition) could be effectively gone through and decided by the Civil Court.
(3.) AGAINST the said decision of the High Court, the respondents -claimants preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India challenging the judgment and order dated 5th /6th August 1985 passed by this High Court. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India with the following observations : "The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed but we may observe that the question whether the petitioners are owners of any right in the property and, if so to what compensation if any, are they entitled are the questions open to the determination in the references preferred by them. The Court disposing of the references will do so without being influenced or fettered by any observations made in these matters " So far as these observations bear upon the questions to be decided by it.";