LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. KISHORE MORARJI BHOJRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present LAR is filed under section 30 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of the apportionment of the compensation due and payable by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the SLAO") under an award dated 20-6-1974 in respect of land acquired bearing CTS No. 1486 part of village Mulund, Taluka- kurla in the Bombay Suburban Districts, Bombay.

(2.) The said land was designated for public playground under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act") for the Bombay Municipal Corporation. On 20- 10-1972 a notification was published under section 126 (4) of the MRTP Act notifying the said land for acquisition. The said notification was published in maharashtra Government Gazette, Part-I on 30-11-1972. Thereafter an erratum was issued on 28-12-1972 which was also published in the Government Gazette on 18-1-1973. The area of the land which was subject of acquisition was around 1333.63 sq. mts. The notification under section 9 was thereafter issued by the slao to both the claimants No. 1 and 2. In reply to the said notice the claimant no. 1 has filed his claim before the SLAO whereas claimant No. 2 did not file any claim for compensation. On 20-6-1974 the SLAO after holding inquiry under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act made an award. A compensation is awarded of sum of Rs. 10,44,967/- out of which an amount of Rs. 15,341.26/- has been separately earmarked for the claimant No. 3 who is BMC in respect of the arrears of property taxes payable to them. On 25-6-1974 a notice was issued and pursuant to the said notice the possession of the land has been handed over on 1-7-1974 by the claimant No. 1 to the SLAO. On 25-6-1974 a notice was issued under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act by the SLAO for payment of compensation. However since claimant No. 2 also made a claim on the said compensation amount the SLAO has filed a present reference under section 30 on 14-1-1975. The SLAO has deposited the amount of compensation in this Court and has sought a direction of the Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition act for apportionment of the compensation amount among the rival claimants.

(3.) The evidence in the present case was recorded by the learned single judge on 2-4-1992 and 23-4-1992. The evidence of both the claimants No. 1 and 2 have been recorded by the learned Single judge. After recording the evidence the Court has passed the order on 23-4-1992 in which the Court has opined that the only dispute in the present case pertains to the identity of the property that is whether the land forms part of Survey No. 177, hissa No. 2 or not For the aforesaid purpose by the said order the city survey officer was directed to depute a suitable person to survey the land and after looking into the revenue and the city survey records file a report about the location of the said land under acquisition. It was also stated therein that the said survey will be carried out by giving notice to both the parties namely claimant No. 1 and 2. The matter was adjourned to 25-6-1992. It is an unfortunate situation that the matter remained in cold storage right from 1992 to 2004. The matter was once again placed on board on 23-8-1994. The learned single judge, Vazifdar, J. observed on that day that the office should submit such a report which has been filed by the city survey officer and should submit a report to the Court within one week. The matter was thereafter placed before the learned single judge on 30-8-2004 when a statement is recorded that the report is not found in the record of the Court office and therefore the city survey office was directed to make the report available in accordance with the order dated 22-4-1992.