Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAN AND DIU & ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI MOHANLAL LALBHAI DESAI & ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1999
BENCH:
M.B.Shah, S.S.ahmad
JUDGMENT:
Shah, J.
This appeal by special leave is filed against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench
(Goa) dated 11.3.1987 in Writ Petition No.162 of 1985
whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 and directed the appellants to take up
acquisition proceedings in respect of respondents land in
question and to determine and pay just compensation under
the Land Acquisition Act.
Admittedly, respondent No.1 was in occupation of
agricultural land admeasuring 1,04,000 sq. meters bearing
Entry Nos.457 and 458 (new Survey No.326) situated in the
village Kachigam of Daman District. On a proposal of the
appellants, respondent No.1 agreed to hand over possession
of the said land under a Kabja receipt dated 26.6.1968. It
was made clear that the possession is given subject to
respondent No.1 being paid compensation in terms of and
according to laws relating to acquisition in force. The
case of respondent No.1 is that he was not paid
compensation. Sometime in the year 1968, the Collector of
Daman issued a show cause notice bearing No.4363 dated
16.10.1968 calling upon respondent No.1 to show cause as to
why the said land be held not vested in Government on the
ground that the same was grass or pasture land. That notice
was challenged by filing Writ Petition before the Judicial
Commissioner. Writ Petition was finally allowed as the
statement was made on behalf of appellants that show cause
notice issued by the Collector had been withdrawn. Based on
the said statement the notice was quashed by the Judicial
Commissioner. Again, on 11.10.1976 the Mamlatdar of Daman
issued notice to respondent No. 1 calling upon him to show
cause why it should not be declared that the land had vested
in the Government, pursuant to the provisions of the Daman
(Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962
(for short the Regulation). After recording the evidence
led by the parties (including on behalf of the State by the
Circle Inspector), the Mamlatdar by his order dated
30.9.1983 withdrew the said notice and dropped the further
proceedings for the reason that he found respondent No.1 was
cultivating the land at the relevant date, and, therefore,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
it was not a pasture or grass land. This order was not
challenged by the appellants. Thereafter in the year 1984,
respondent No. 1 made representations to various
authorities of the State for compensation in respect of his
land taken over for Seed Farm. By order dated 21.6.1985,
the Directorate of Agriculture, Panaji rejected the claim of
respondent No. 1 for payment of compensation by holding
that the land taken over from respondent No. 1 was pasture
or grass land and, therefore, the question of payment of
compensation fell outside the purview of the law. The
respondent challenged the said order by filing aforesaid
writ petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed
the writ petition and held that respondent No. 1 was
divested of vast land on 26.6.1968 against a representation
that the same was required for a public purpose for the
establishment of multipurpose seed farm and appropriate
acquisition proceedings would be drawn up and he would be
paid adequate compensation under the law. The possession of
the land was taken from respondent No. 1 on 26.6.1968 under
a solemn representation that respondent No. 1 would be paid
due compensation according to law in force. In the year
1976, the Mamlatdar issued a notice to show cause as to why
the said land being pasture or grass land should not be held
to have vested in Government. The Mamlatdar by his order
dated 30.9.1983, after recording the evidence, withdrew the
said notice and dropped further proceedings against
respondent no.1. Hence, respondent No.1 is entitled to have
compensation of the land under the Land Acquisition Act.
That order is challenged in this appeal.
In our view, considering the facts as stated above, it
is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is just
and legal. The Kabja receipt dated 26.6.1968 which is
produced on record of this Court clearly mentions that
possession of land was handed over on the condition and
assurance that compensation was to be paid as per the rules
and regulations of the Government. Apart from the fact that
the question whether the land was pasture or grass land on
the relevant date is pure question of fact, there is no
evidence on record to establish that the land was grass land
which vested in the State Government. The learned counsel
for the appellant is also not in a position to point out any
such evidence. At the time of taking possession of the
land, it is nowhere mentioned that the land was pasture or
grass land. Further taking over possession, the Collector
issued show cause notice for that purpose and that notice
was challenged before the High Court. On behalf of the
Government, it was stated before the High Court that the
notice be quashed. Hence, the Court quashed the said notice
keeping the other issues open. If the land was in fact
grassland, there was no necessity of withdrawing the show
cause notice. Thereafter in 1976, Mamlatdar issued show
cause notice as provided under the Regulations of 1962.
Proceedings were initiated by the Mamlatdar for
determination whether the land was grass land or it was
being cultivated. The order of Mamlatdar reveals that on
the date of inspection, the entire area was under
cultivation and was having fruit bearing trees planted by
the Agricultural Department and, therefore, proceedings
initiated on the basis of show cause notice were dropped.
The Mamlatdar also ordered that respondent No. 1 should
file his claim for compensation before the appropriate
authority. That order attained finality as the Government
did not challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
In view of the aforesaid final order, it is not open
to the State Government to deny the rights of respondent
No.1. Hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the
High Court is in any way illegal or erroneous.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with
costs. Interim relief stands vacated.