Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI CHANDRAGAUDA RAMGONDA PATIL & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO. 19030 OF 1996 [CC - 4204/96]
O R D E R
These Special Leave Petitions have been filed against
the orders passed in W.P. No.5196/89 on March 12, 1990 and
W.P. No.1552/96 on April 26, 1996. There is absolutely no
merit for condonation of delay in the the first writ
petition. As regards the second writ petition, the facts are
not in dispute. Way back in 1974, notification under Section
126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act ["MRTP
Act", for short] was issued after the approval of the Scheme
by the State Government, for acquiring the land for
utilisation thereof for the stated Scheme. Pursuant thereto,
an award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, the "Act") on November 11, 1977. Possession was taken
earlier on October 21, 1974. After the utilisation of the
land, surplus land was sought to be used for allotment to
some of the Councilors and the employees of the Kolhapur
Municipality. Consequently, the first writ petition came to
be filed which was dismissed on merits on March 12, 1990.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed a suit challenging the
acquisition and suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn being
not maintainable. Writ Petition No. 1552/96 came to be
filed. That writ petition was also dismissed on the ground
that the earlier order in the writ petition operated as res
judicate. Therefore, the second writ petition was held to be
not maintainable.
Shri Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, contended that in the second writ petition, the
petitioner sought restitution of the possession pursuant to
the Resolution of the State Government dated October 10,
1973 under which Government directed that the surplus land
was to be utilised first for any other public purpose and in
the alternative it was to be given back to the erstwhile
owners. Since he had sought enforcement of the said
Government Resolution, the writ petition could not be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
dismissed on the ground of constructive res judicate. He
also seeks to rely upon certain orders said to have been
passed by the High Court in conformity with enforcement of
the Government Resolution. We do not think that this Court
would be justified in making direction for restitution of
the land to the erstwhile owners when the land was taken way
back and vested in the Municipality free from all
encumbrances. We are not concerned with the validity of the
notification in either of the writ petitions. It is
axiomatic that the land acquired for a public purpose would
be utilised for any another public purpose, though use of it
was intended for the original public purpose. It is not
intended that any land which remain unutilised, should be
restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom adequate
compensation was paid according to the market value as on
the date of the notification. Under these circumstances, the
High Court was well justified in refusing to grant relief in
both the writ petitions.
The special leave petitions are dismissed.