SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. PUNJAJI GOPAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As in both the appeals and the Cross Objection, common questions arise, they are being considered by this common judgement.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the original claimants (hereinafter referred to as the 'original claimants/land owners') were occupying the agricultural lands at Village Dholakuva and upon enactment and enforcement of Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Watans Abolition Act'), the occupants of the land in question on the principles of the Tillers Land had to pay occupancy price and upon the payment of the occupancy price the land may be re-granted to the occupier. So far as the present land is concerned, as per the original claimants, they were occupiers, however, after the enactment of the Watans Abolition Act, the lands were shown in the revenue record as resumed by the Government. The occupancy price was fixed and paid by the original claimant, but the actual, physical possession of the land by re-grant was not handed over to the original claimants. In the meantime, when certain lands at Village Dholakuva were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), no proposal was forwarded for acquisition of the land in question, since they were already shown in the revenue record as that of the Government. However, together with the other lands, which were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the Executive Engineer of the Capital Project took over the possession of the land in question as if they were Government Land and having vested and in occupation of the Government as per the Watans Abolition Act, but not re-granted to the original occupants. It appears that the matter thereafter continued for a long time in the same position and the original claimants made representation against their rights have not been properly considered for the lands in question of re-grant of the land and of handing over of the possession and wrongful deprivation of the possession of the land in question.

(3.) Ultimately, there were litigations before this Court and the matter thereafter was referred to Kr.Fateh Singh Jasol to examine and submit the report to the State Government, popularly known as 'Jasol Committee'. The said Jasol Committee in the report, gave the decision, which may be of some importance in the present issue to be considered. Under these circumstances, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, we have taken on record Jasol Committee report dated 22.6.2001. In order to understand the rights of the parties, inter se, for the purpose of the fair assessment of the market rent and/or the compensation, which may be dealt with hereinafter certain observations in the said report are relevant. We may state that Jasol Committee gave the final decision as under:-