RAMNIKLAL N BHUTTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is preferred against the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant. The review petition was filed by the appellant against the order dismissing his writ petition by a Division Bench. The matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(3.) By a notification dated November 29, 1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), two pieces of land were notified for acquisition for a public purpose, to wit, "for Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking for bus station". The two pieces of land notified are C. T. S. No. 218 admeasuring 1759 sq. mtrs, and C. T. S. No. 211 admeasuring 370 Sq. mtrs. The appellant claims to be the owner of CTS No. 211. The declaration under Section 6 was made on December 16, 1982. CTS No. 218 belongs to a Church but there are others who claim to have interest in the said laid, viz., Vijayanand Singh and Gayatri Darshan Cooperative Housing Society. The BEST entered into a settlement with the said two persons whereunder an extent of 906 sq. mtrs. was given on a perpetual lease to BEST free of any charge, i.e., Re. 1/- per annum. The lease deed executed by the said two persons in favour of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (representing BEST) is dated August 21, 1986. The remaining portion was to be utilised by the said persons for their own purposes including construction of a multi-storyed complex for the employees of Bombay Municipal Corporation. Under the said settlement, the said two persons also agreed to construct a bus station, in the portion leased out to BEST, at their own cost and hand it over to the BEST tree of cost. This settlement was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer by the Additional Collector through his letter dated September 5, 1986. On September 18, 1986 the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award wherein he referred to the aforesaid sttlement brought to his notice and, on that basis, did not deal with or make any award of compensation with respect to CTS No. 218. His award was confined only to CTS No. 211. When the appellant came to know of the aforesaid facts, he addressed a letter to the authorities contending that exclusion of CTS No. 218 from acquisition and passing the award only with respect to CTS No. 211 was illegal. On November 10, 1986, he filed a writ petition challenging acquisition of CTS No. 211 on various grounds. The writ petition was summarily dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated December 8, 1986 against which the appellant preferred a writ appeal/ Letters Patent Appeal No. 1888 of 1986. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed and the writ petition restored to file. It came up for hearing before a Division Bench on June 15, 1995. On that day, the advocate for the appellant asked for an adjournment and on that being declined, reported "no instructions". The writ petition was dismissed with costs. The appellant then filed a review petition contending that the statement by his counsel on June 15, 1995 that he had no instructions was a false one and that the advocate had not really contacted him. He requested that the writ petition may be heard on merits. The Division Bench heard the parties at length and dismissed the writ petition again. It opined that having regard to the fact that the acquisition Notification was issued in 1979, that the writ petition has been pending in the High Court since 1986 and more particularly, having regard to the purpose of acquisition, no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench also went into the merits of the case and rejected both the contentions of the appellant on that score, viz., (1) that the public notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was not served upon the appellant and (2) that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated by mala fides. The plea of mala fides put forward by the appellant was based upon the following facts:the promoters of the Gayatri Darshan Cooperative Housing Society had entered into an agreement on sale with Vijayanand Singh who claims to be the owner of CTS No. 218. The society was formed by the employees of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The promoters of the society wanted to pur chase the appellants plot with a view to obtain frontage on the road. The negotiations, however, failed whereupon with a view to deprive the appellant of his title and interest in CTS No. 218, the promoters got the user of the said plot changed from "residential" to "BEST Bus station" and again to "BEST bus station"and "fish market". The said change of user in the development plan was approved by BEST and the Corporation contrary to law. As stated above, the High Court rejected the plea of mala fides. The High Court also observed that one Misquitta claimed to be the owner of CTS No. 211 and that he had also appeared in the land acquisition proceedings whereas the appellant entered the picture much later. It is not even clear, the High Court observed, whether the appellant had any interest in the said plot on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4.