KANTILAL AND ORS. ETC. versus SHANTILAL AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 14-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KANTILAL AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
V. 
SHANTILAL AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 14, 1991 
[M.H; KANIA,CJ. AND N.M.KASLIWAL, J.] 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,1959: 
Section 5 0-Court sale of property-Mutation order passed by 
Tehsildar on the basis of sale cert(ficate and compromise application-
Collector issuing notice in suo motu proceedings initiated after 17 years C 
on the legality of the mutation-Subsequently setting aside the mutation 
order-Whether justified. 
Town Improvement Tmst Act, 1960: 
Sections 68, 73-Acquisition proceedings and determination of D 
compensation-Party entitled to compensation on the basis of mutation 
order passed by Tehsildar-Collector suo motu interfering after 17 years-
Validity of-Enhancement of compensation~Whetherjustifled. 
The land in question was granted by the Ruler of erstwhile 
State of..Ratlam in favour of ancestors of respondents (Pitaliyas) for 
E 
installation of a ginning factory. Ancestors of appellants (Jhalanis) 
entered into a partnership with Pitaliyas and started a giDDing fac-
tory on a portion of the said land. In the revenue records, in respect 
of the entire land the names of Jhalanis and Pitaliyas were entered. 
According to the Jhalanis in ex.ecuti@n of a decree against Pitaliyas F 
the above land was sold and Jhalanis purchased the said land in an 
auction. On an application m_oved by the Jhalanis, the Tehsildar. 
passed an order mutating the names of Jhalanis in respect of the 
entire land. The said mutation was allowed on the basis of compro-
mise between the parties and on the basis of a sale certificate issued 
by the Civil Court. 
G 
The Town Improvement Trust started acquisition proceedings 
for a housing scheme and acquired certainfarids including the land 
in question. The Collector started suo motu proceedings, issued no-
tice to the Jhalanis and set aside the order of mutation passed by 
the T ehsildar. An appeal preferred by the Jhalanis before the Addi-
H 
257 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] SUPP.2 S.C.R. 
tional Commissioner was dismissed. The Board of Revenue allowed 
the further appeal and held thatpending mutation proceedings, there 
,, was compromise between the parties, objections were withdrawn by 
the Pitaliyas and no appeal of revision was filed against the muta-
tion order nor any suit was filed challenging the order of the Tehsildar. 
The Pitaliyas then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which 
was allowed and the order of the ·Board of Revenue was set aside. 
Against the said judgment of the High Court, the Jhalanis have 
preferred an appeal before this Court .. 
In the acquisition proceedings the Tribunal gave a finding that 
Pitaliyas had no right to claim compensation and Jhalanis alone 
were entitled to the entire amount of compensation. The order of 
· the Tribunal was challenged by the parties by filing separate ap-
peals before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal 
filed by Pitaliyas and held that they were entitled to claim compen-
.sation in equal proportion with Jhalanis; it dismissed the appeal 
filed on behalf of the Trust for reducing compensation and allowed 
the appeal filed by Jhalanis in part and increased the rate of com- . 
pensation from 65 paise per sq.ft to 75 paise per sq.ft. Aggrieved 
against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court in acquisition 
proceedings, the Jhalanis and the Trust have filed the other two 
appeals before this Court. 
Allowing the appeals on the questions of validity of the muta-
tion made and entitlement to receive compensation, and partly al-
lowing the appeal on the question whether enhancement of compen-
sateon was justified, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. There was a decree of a Civil Court and in execu-
tion of the. same the properties were auctioned. Even if there was 
any dispute as to whether any share of Pitaliyas in the land was sold 
or not in the auction proceedings the sam~. does not survive after 
the compromise between the parties. In the Prder of the Tehsildar 
passed as back as 20th February, 1953 the Jhalanis alone were re-
corded as full owners of the properties and they continued to re-
main in possession. The Trust took possession froni Jhalanis on 21st 
March, 1968 in the land acquisition proceedings. There is nothing 
on record to show that Pitaliyas ever remained in possession of the 
land in question after 20th February, 1953 till the time they inade a 
claim of half share in the <;ompensation before the Tribunal.-'[264 D, 
EJ 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.