STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BABU GOVIND GAVATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are very brief. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), acquiring land for a public purpose, namely, to establish Electricity Sub-Station for the Maharashtra State Electricity Board as published in the State Gazette on April 19, 1966. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award determined the compensation at Rs. 5,000/- per acre in respect of an extent of 7, acres 9 gunthas of land in Survey No. '124-A situated in Airavali village in Thane District of State of Maharashtra, but deducted 1/3rd towards the interest of the Government. The respondent had challenged the Government's power to deduct 1/3rd compensation. The appellate Court confirmed the same. On appeal, the High Court while increasing the compensation to Rupees 6,000/- per acre, had directed payment of the deducted 1/3rd amount to the respondent by its judgment and decree dated 10-9-1976 made in F.A. No. 574/70. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the Government in its circular dated April 26, 1972 issued by Revenue and Forests Department in Letter No. LON-4767-H, directed deduction of 1/3rd of the market value of the land for the interest in such land held by the Government and that, therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order. He also contended that Section 43 of the c (for short, 'the Tenancy Act') empowers the Collector to grant sanction. It is also empowered thereunder to fix consideration, as condition to alienate the lands when the Collector has the power to determine the compensation when the land was acquired for a public purpose. We are wholly unable to appreciate the stand taken by the Government. The object of the Tenancy Act, is to protect the "rights of the tiller of the soil", namely, the tenant or who later became owner so as to remain in possession and enjoyment of the land as part of economic justice assured in the preamble and the directive principles of the Constitution. Under the tenancy Act the tenant has been given right to purchase the lands from the erstwhile owner as provided in different sections of the said Act. Section 43 (1) and 43 (1A) provide that:

(3.) A reading thereof clearly indicates that Section 43 was enacted to protect the right, title and interest of the tenant who purchased the property and became owner thereof with a view to see that he is not deprived of his ownership, right to possession and enjoyment thereof as a tiller of the soil to perpetuate the object of the Tenancy Act. As its scheme previous sanction is a condition precedent for any transfer except when the land is being mortgaged to a co-operative bank or a lending institution envisaged in sub-section (1AA) and the Explanation appended thereto amplifies such institution so as to enable him to obtain loans for improving the land for better cultivation and to augment economic empowerment. The consideration mentioned thereunder was also to protect the tiller from exploitation, indigency or compelling dire necessity to alienate the loans and under a fictitious and colourable transaction or for inadequate consideration. That, under no circumstances, gives power to the Government, when it acquires the land exercising the power of eminent domain to deduct any amount from the compensation payable to the owner of the land as determined under Section 23(1) of the Act.