9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property in accordance with law. Since the land in question is being used for CIDCO without payment of any compensation or without acquiring the same, the entire action is illegal. B) The respondent no. 1 is being a corporation owned by the respondent no. 2 is not expected to usurp and illegally take over private land owned by the said Trust of which the petitioner is a Trustee. For such unauthorized user, the respondent no. 1 is liable to pay compensation to the Trust. C). In the alternative, if the respondent no. 1 is not in a position to return the land, it is liable to allot alternate land to the Trust on freehold tenure. 4. The appellant herein and as well as the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary to the Ministry of Revenue and the Collector, Raigad have been impleaded as party respondents in the said Writ Petition. The first respondent/writ petitioner claims to be one of the Trustees of Sir Khan Bahadur Hormasji Bhiwandiwala Trust (hereinafter referred to as `the said Trust') and the writ petition itself has been filed in his capacity as Trustee. The first respondent in his writ petition pleaded that the said Trust is the owner of land bearing Gat No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a private land, in possession of CIDCO and is required for the Navi Mumbai Project, the CIDCO is requesting to (sic;) the Government to acquire it by following due process of law. 7. The State of Maharashtra and the Collector Raigad not only failed to file their reply affidavits but their officers who were present in the court instructed the learned A.G.P., who in turn made an oral statement which is para phrased by the High Court in its judgment to the effect the learned A.G.P. Mr. Malvankar on instructions from Mrs. Revathi A. Gaikar, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel and Mr. M.N. Sanap, Tahsildar, Panvel who are present in the court makes a statement that on consideration of the documents in their possession that except for 93 Ars they have no documentary evidence to show that rest of the land was acquired. 8. The High Court relying upon the oral statement made by the learned A.G.P. and the reply affidavit of the appellant disposed of the Writ Petition directing Collector, Raigad to take steps to acquire the land by following due procedure and complete the acquisition proceedings within one year of receiving the requisition from the appellant. The question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have mostly relied upon the oral statement made through the learned A.G.P. and also some vague averments made by the appellant in its reply affidavit and accordingly disposed of the Writ Petition directing the acquisition of the land. The High Court did not consider as to what is the effect of the said oral statement and the averments made by the appellant in its reply affidavit. Whether such an oral statement coupled with the averments made to the effect that the land is a private land by themselves would amount to recognising the title of the respondent? The fact remains that there is no whisper in the impugned order that Sir Khan Bahadur Hormasji Bhiwandiwala Trust continued to be the true and absolute owner of the land possessing valid and subsisting title as on the date of the filing of the writ petition. Nor there is any finding by the High Court as regards the nature of the land which is one of the most important factor that may have a vital bearing on the issue as to the entitlement of the respondent to get any relief in the writ petition. There is also no finding that the writ petitioner who filed the Writ Petition as an individual is the trustee of the said trust and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3th April, 2005 for filing in the court on 20th April, 2005. The fact remains that the respondent never brought this fact on record during the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court ought to have considered whether there was any suppression of material facts from the court. The High Court did not consider the effect of respondent describing himself as the vendor in the Confirmation Deed which is not in tune with the recitals in the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th August, 1982. The High Court did not address to itself as to whether such complex and disputed facts could be satisfactorily adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court was carried away by the fact that the relief had already been granted inasmuch as the acquisition proceedings have commenced after the disposal of the Writ Petition. We are constrained to express our reservation about the manner and approach of the High Court in disposing of the Writ Petition and the Review Petition. 16. In our view, the High Court ought to have examined the contents of Deed of Confirmation as well as the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th August, 1982 before granting the relief as prayed for by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of Mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a Writ is an adequate ground for refusing a Writ. The principle is that courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum. 20. The appellant in its reply opposing the admission of Writ Petition in clear and categorical terms pleaded that the writ petitioner has kept silent for more than 35 years and filed belated writ petition. It was asserted that on account of inordinate delay and laches the writ petition suffers from legal infirmities and therefore liable to be rejected in limine. The High Court did not record any finding whatsoever and ignored such a plea of far reaching consequence. 21. As noticed hereinabove the High Court obviously was impre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to in law. 23. None of these parameters have been kept in view by the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition and the Review Petition. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court on merits. Consequently, all the notifications issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 including the award passed and the reference made to the Civil Court are set aside. 25. During the course of hearing of these appeals not only affidavits and additional affidavits but also some documents which may have a vital bearing on the merits of the case are placed on record. These affidavits and the documents filed into this court shall form part of the writ proceedings. The matter requires fresh consideration by the High Court. 26. Parties are given liberty to supplement their respective pleadings if they so choose and file additional documents, if any, which shall be received by the High Court for its consideration. We may hasten to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. All the contentions of both sides are expressly kept open for their determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
