LAXMAN BHASKAR PATHARA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short "the Act", was published in the State Gazette on 7/7/1990 acquiring a large extent of land including 20,000. 00 sq. yds. situated in Dahisar Village in Bombay covered by C. T. S. Nos. 1171/a, 1176 and 1183 (part) for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector made an Award on 26/10/1992 determining the compensation including the Item Nos. 1171 (part) , 1176 and 1183 (part) in which the appellants are the owners and were recorded in the Revenue Records as holders of the lands. He also found on a letter addressed by M/s R. S. Builders, the 4th respondent in this appeal, that they also claimed to be "other persons interested". On that basis, since he was not in a position to apportion the compensation between them made a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the Civil court. The appellants questioned the correctness of the reference in this behalf by filing a writ petition. The division bench of the High court in WP No. 637 of 1993, by order dated 5/4/1993 held that it is difficult to make proper apportionment of the compensation by the Collector, hence he had deposited the amount and made the reference. It also opined that as the namesof the persons have been shown as claiming interest in the lands and that since litigation between the appellants and the 4th respondent are pending in the courts, it is not possible for the Collector to decide as to who is entitled to the compensation or apportionment thereof. Under those circumstances, it was held that the Collector had rightly made a reference under Section 30 of the Act and it is not a case for interference by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) It is now an admitted case that the 4th respondent M/s R. S. Builders did not receive any notice under S. 9 and 10 of the Act, nor made any claim before the Collector except writing a letter on 25/6/1992 to the Collector. Admittedly, the appellants also had no opportunity to contest the claim of the 4th respondent.