MAHAVIR JANGONDA PATIL versus DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 22-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 74 
A 
MAHAVIR JANGONDA Pl.fflL 
v 
DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT & ORS. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 6335-6336 of 2001 
B 
APRIL 22, 2009 
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons 
Act, 1976: 
c 
Sections 11, 12, 15 -
Section 15( 1) Notification -
Compromise between brothers entered into thereafter- Effect 
of - Held: In view of the clear legislative intent under section 
12, any transfer by way of sale, partition etc. after the 
Notification would be void - Where the statute itself is against 
D a transfer it is the statute which will predominate vis-a-vis any 
other consideration - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections.4, 
6. 
Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. Vs. Addagada 
Chenchamma and Anr. [1964] 2 SCR 933 and State of Punjab 
E vs. Amar Singh [1974) 2 SCC 70 - referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s). 
• 
6335-6336 of 2001 
From the Judgement and Order dated 12.04.2001 of the 
.... 
F High Court of-Judicature at Bombay in Review Application No. 
71 of 2001 in Writ Petition No. 6063 of 1988 and dated 
22.03.2001 in-Writ Petition No. 6063 of 1988. 
Chinmoy Khaladkar (for Vimal Chandra S. Dave), for the 
,; 
Appellant(s). 
G 
Arun Ramnath PeClnekar (for Asha Gopalan Nair), for the 
Respondent(s). 
t 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
74 
• 
MAHAVIR JANGONDA PATIL V. 
75 
DIRECTOR OF _RESETTLEMENT & ORS. 
~ 
These appeals are directed against the judgment and 
A 
order dated 12.4.2001 in Review Application No.71 of 2001 
passed by the Bombay High Court and the judgment and order 
dated 22.3.2001 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ 
Petition No.6063 of 1988 dated 22.3.2001 whereby the Writ 
Petition filed by the present appellant has been dismissed. 
B 
In the writ petition a challenge has been made by the 
~ appellant to the notification under Section 15(1) dated 29th May, 
1982 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced 
Persons Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the "Resettlement Act") 
and also for quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6. C 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued. by Respondent No.4. 
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
\ 
Respondent No.6, through respondent No.3, issued a 
notification on 2nd November, 1978 under Section 11 (1) of the D 
Resettlement Act declaring the villages comprised therein to 
be covered under the benefited zones of Warna Project in 
Kolhapur District from the said date. The said notification 
included the appellant's village, Shriti. Respondent No.2 
thereafter issued notification under Section 14(1) of the E 
Resettlement Act on 24th December, 1981 provisionally 
declaring the area to be acquired under Section 16 for the said 
Y 
Warna Project. The Respondents also issued a. notification 
under Section 15 of the Resettlement Act which was published 
in the government gazette on 29th May, 1982 finally declaring 
F 
the areas covered by the benefited zone. Respondent No.4, on 
1st September, 1983, issued a notification under Section 4 of 
the Land Acquisition Act intending to acquire the Petitioner's 
land bearing gat No.677 part, admeasuring 1 hectare 62 ares 
for the purpose of resettlement of persons affected by the Warna G 
1 
Project. The appellant lodged his objections to the notices 
issued pursuant to the Resettlement Act and the Land 
Acquisition Act and pointed out inter alia that on account of a 
compromise recorded in the year 1979, arising out a suit for 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A partition filed in 1967, the land had been partitioned amongst 
"' 
various members of the. family and that the land holdings of the 
petitioner and his brothers had accordingly been reduced to 
less than 8 acres and the petitioner's land thus could be acquired 
in view of Section 16 of the Resettlement Act read along with 
B the schedule appended thereto. The High Court in the impugned 
judgment held that as the compromise had been effected in the 
year 1979, i.e., after the date of notification dated 2.11.1978 
issued under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act, the 
... 
aforesaid compromise could not be taken into account as it 
c was void ab initio and, accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. 
It is in this situation, the matter is before us. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have 
gone through the record. 
D 
Section 12 of the Resettlement Act, 1976 reads as under: 
• 
"12. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any 

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