STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHRIMANT GOVINDRAO NARAYANRAO GHORPADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was initially heard by the Division Bench consisting of Waikar and Vaze, JJ., and by their order dated September 15, 1983, certain questions have been referred to the Full Bench. Though the questions have not been formulated in the referring judgment, we have, at the time of the hearing of this reference, formulated those questions. We will enumerate them in the latter part of this judgment.

(2.) Before considering the controversy it would be necessary to mention a few facts. Two acres and 25 gunthas from Survey No. 610, situated at lchalkaranji were acquired for public purpose viz. burial ground. This land was originally a jagir land. The said jagir along with other miscellaneons inams and watans were abolished under the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "1955-Act"). The scheme of the Act is to abolish all alienations or watans. Section 7 provides that the land under a watan stands resumed and that it shall be granted to the holder of the watan in accordance with the provisions mentioned in that section. Sub-section (2) provides that the watan of the type with which we are concerned shall be granted on payment of certain occupancy price within the prescribed period. That occupancy price is in multiples of the assessment of the land. Sub-section (3), which is relevant for deciding this reference, reads as follows :

(3.) The Land Acquistion Officer fixed the amount of compensation of the claimants land at Rs. 8,717/- without taking into account the clog about the alienability and partibility of the land as mentioned above. The claimant filed a reference under section 18. In that reference the compensation was determined at over Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, the reference was allowed to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- only as the clamant had limited his claim to that figure. Certain order has been made as regards the apportionment of the compensation between the jagirdar owner and his tenant. However, that aspect is not relevant for deciding this reference. The State preferred this appeal. Amongst other grounds one of the contention is that the compensation should have been fixed at a reduced amount as there is a clog on transfer of the land. Thus, by reason of section 7(3) the tenure regranted to the jagirdar is not transferable or partible without the previous sanction of the Collector and except on payment of certain amount as mentioned above. The question has arisen before this Court in a number of matters as to whether the abovementioned term of inalienability or impartibility has any relevance while determining the amount of compensation payable to the owner. In the following matters it was held that such a term in the regrant is irrelevant when the land in being compulsorily acquired and that the amount of compensation has to be determined after ignoring that term.