9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has been dismissed. 2. In the writ petition a challenge has been made by the appellant to the notification under Section 15(1) dated 29th May, 1982 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the "Resettlement Act") and also for quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by Respondent No. 4. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Respondent No. 6, through respondent No. 3, issued a notification on 2nd November, 1978 under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act declaring the villages comprised therein to be covered under the benefited zones of Warna Project in Kolhapur District from the said date. The said notification include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Resettlement Act, the aforesaid compromise could not be taken into account as it was void ab initio and, accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. It is in this situation, the matter is before us. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. Section 12 of the Resettlement Act, 1976 reads as under: 12. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no land in the villages of areas specified in the notification under Section 11 shall, after publication of that notification in the official Gazette, and until the Deputy Director makes a declaration to the effect that all proceedings for the acquisition of lands in the benefited zone area completed, be - (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the Collectors of Districts who are ex-officio Deputy Directors (Land), subject to such conditions and limitations, if any as may be specified in the order. 6. A perusal of Section 12 reveals that after the land has been notified under Section 11, any sub-division of the land by means of partition etc., shall be deemed to be void. Admittedly, the compromise in the matter was after the date of notification in the year 1978. The learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, forcefully submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court in Addagada Raghavamma And Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma And Anr. [1964]2SCR933 , once the partition had been effected even if by a compromise, it would relate back to the date when the intention to sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o decide on its own certain foundational facts, a razi cannot operate to defeat the requirement so specified or absolve the Court from the duty. The resultant order will be ineffective. After all, by consent or agreement, parties cannot achieve what is contrary to law and a decree merely based on such agreement cannot furnish a judicial amulet against statutory violation. For, "by private agreement, converted into a decree, parties cannot empower themselves to do that which they could not have done by private agreement alone". (See Mulla: Civil Procedure Code, Vol. II, P. 1300). The true rule is that "the contract of the parties is not the less a contract, and subject to the incidents of a contract, because there is superadde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
