Allowed

Sambhaji Sopan Koshti and Ors. v. Tahasildar and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2005WP/2241/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged land acquisition proceedings where a registered partition deed existed prior to the notice but was ignored by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Court quashed notices regarding land deemed to be Petitioner No.2

What did the court decide?

Notice issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of the land of Petitioner No.2 is quashed and set aside.

Sambhaji Sopan Koshti and Ors. Vs Tahasildar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2241 OF 2002

¶5

1. SAMBHAJI SOPAN KOSHTI	)
2. ISHWAR KRISHNA KOSHTI	)
3. SHANKAR KRISHNA KOSHTI	) )
All Adults, Agriculturists, )
r/o. Hatnur, Tal. Tasgaon,	)
Dist. Sangli.	)...Petitioners.
V/s
1. TAHASILDAR, Tagaon	)
Dist. Sangli.	)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,	) )
Miraj Division, Miraj,	)
Dist. Sangli	) )
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION )
OFFICER NO.5, Sangli	)
having office at Mahasul	)
Niwas, Miraj, Dist. Sangli	) )
4. DISTRICT RESETTLEMENT	)
OFFICER, Sangli.	)
	)
5. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, )
Pune Division, Pune. 6. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ---	) ) ) ..Respondents.
Mr. R.V. More for the petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for the respondents.

¶6

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & V. M. KANADE, JJ.

¶7

DATE: 17th August, 2005.

¶8

:2:

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.)

¶10

1.	By	this	petition,	petitio	ners are	challenging the
acquisition	proceedi	ngs	which	are	initiated	by the
Special	Land	Ac	quisition	Officer	under	the provisions
of the	Land	Acq	uisition	Act,	1894 read	with the

¶11

provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons

¶12

Rehabilitation Act, 1986.

¶13

Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of

¶14

deciding this petition are as under:-

¶15

3.	Petitioner Nos. 2 and	3 and the	fath	er of
petitioner	No.1 partitioned the	ancestral	lands	by
executing	a registered partition	deed on		01/02/1977.
Mutation	Entry No.8428 was made	to give	effect	to the
partition	in the record on	30/03/1981.	Howeve	r, this
Mutation	Entry was not certified	as partition	was	made
without	obtaining permission under	section 86	of	the
Maharashtra	Land Revenue Code,	as a result	of	which
all	transactions in respect of	the land	falling	under
the	benefitted zone were pro	hibited and	there	was
further	prohibition on making any	entry in	the	revenue
record	effecting such transfer	or change	of	ownership
after	the said date. After	the provisions	of	the
Maharashtra	Project Affected	Persons	Re	habilitation
Act,	1986 were made applicable	to the land	of	the

¶16

	:3:
petitioners,	notices were issued by the S	pecial		Land
Acquisition	Officer under section 4(1) of	the		Land
Acquisition	Act. Petitioners promptly gave	repl	y	to
the	said notices and it was specifically	co	ntended	in
the	said reply that the land which was so	ught	to	be
acquired	was already partitioned between	the		brothers
by	a registered partition deed dated 01/	02/197	7	and
the	area of 5 Hectares and 23 R fell to t	he	share	of
petitioner	No.1 and the area of 3 Hectares	and	24	R
fell to	the share of petitioner No.2 and the	are	a	of 4
Hectares	and 80 R was retained by petitioner	No	.3.	It
was	contended that the Mutation Entry which	was		made
on	30/03/1981 was not certified on	ac	count	of
technical	reasons as provided under section	86	of	the
Maharashtra	Land Revenue Code. It was	subm	itted	that,
however,	the fact that there was a partit	ion		between
the	brothers was established by the		r	egistered
partition	deed. It was contended in th	eir	reply	that

¶17

as a result of the said partition, the land of

¶18

petitioner No.2 was not liable to be acquired.

¶19

4.	The Sp	ecial	Land	Acq	uisition Officer,	howe	ver,	did
not	accept	the	said		objection raised	by		the
petitioners	and	a	Notific	ation	under section	6	of	the
Land	Acquisition	A	ct	was	issued an	d,	the	reafter,
notices	under	section	9	sub-cl	auses (3) and	(4)		were

¶20

:4:

¶21

issued. Being aggrieved by the said notices,

¶22

petitioners have filed this Petition under Article 226

¶23

and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

After the Petition was filed, an ad-interim relief

¶25

was granted by this Court on 31/10/2002.

¶26

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since there was a registered partition deed which had been brought to the notice of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was the duty of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to take into consideration the said registered partition deed. He submitted that, however, this registered partition deed was not taken into

¶27

consideration. He submitted that the land of the

¶28

petitioner No.2 was not liable to be acquired.

¶29

Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-reply in which they have stated in para 3 that the petitioners neither in their reply to the notices under section 4 nor in the enquiry under section 5-A have submitted

¶30

any evidence with regard to the alleged registered

¶31

partition deed.

¶32

:5:

¶33

8.	The	learned	Counsel appearing on behalf	of	the
petitioners		submitted	that the petitioners	have	given
the x	erox	copy	of the registered part	nership	deed.
Respondents	have	also	acknowledged in their	reply	that
this obj	ection	that	there was a regist	ered part	nership
deed was	raised	by	the petitioners in the	reply to	the
notices.	In	our	view, since the	property	was
partitioned	prior	to	the issuance of	notice	under
section	11	of the	said Act, it was incum	bent on	the
Special	Land	Acq	uisition Officer to have	taken	into
consideration		such	registered partition	deed	which
clearly	establish	es	that the land wa	s par	titioned
prior	to the	issuance	of the said notice.	In view	of
the	said	evidence,	therefore, the submissions	of	the

¶34

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

¶35

will have to be accepted.

¶36

9.	Accordingly,	Notice	issued	by th	e Sp	ecial	Land
Acquisition	Officer	for	acquisition	of	the	land	of
petitioner	No.2 under	section	4(1)	and	under	section	6

¶37

and section 9 sub-clauses (3) and (4) of the said Act

¶38

are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶39

10.	In our	view,	the	Special	Land	Acquisition	Officer
was	under	legal	obligation	to	consider	the	registered
partition	deed.		However,	though	this	evidence	was

¶40

:6:

¶41

brought	to	the	notice	of	the	Spec	ial	Land	Acquisition
Officer,	he	has	failed	to	take	it	into		consideration
this	valuable		piece	of	evide	nce.		Under	the

¶42

circumstances Writ Petition is made absolute in the

¶43

above terms with costs.

¶44

(R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

¶45

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Sambhaji Sopan Koshti and Ors. v. Tahasildar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhaji Sopan Koshti and Ors. v. Tahasildar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charandas Megji and Ors. Vs State of Mah.and Ors.

Shriram R Patel Vs the Mun Corpn of Gr Bombay

Sampat Raj Dugar. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay.

Laxman B. Veer Vs Spl.Land Acq.Officer and Ors.

Bhaskar G. Thorat and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxman Narayan Dhane Vs S.L.A.O. No. 4, Satara and Others