LexNOOR SK. BHAIKAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 7 S.C.R. 1070 NOOR SK. BHAIKAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.103 of 2002) JULY 7, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] RESETTLEMENT ACT, 1965: c Allotment of agricultural land to landowner whose land had been acquired under Land Acquisition Act-Mistake in marking boundaries of land, and possession of wrong agricultural land handed over to allottee-Order of revenue authorities to allot alternative /and-Held: The right of the 0 allottee was to seek agricultural land under the provisions of the Re~Settlement Act and in so far as the right was protected, the allottee could not ask for a particular land-The grant of relief in relation to the alternate land cannot be faulted with inasmuch as if there was a mistake committed by the E Revenue Authorities which was subsequently corrected, no advantage can be claimed by the al/ottee in that regard - The land which was not subject matter of the acquisition could not be treated as the land having been offered to the al/ottee validly and in accordance with law - The High Court has passed multifold directions in relation to granting of alternate F land and conducting of an enquiry by the competent authority as well - Thus, the directions sufficiently take care of the interest of the allottee - As far as the claim of compensation by the allottee with regard to improvement made on the land is concerned, again it is for the Government to decide as per G its policy-Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant was allotted and handed over possession of 1.61 hectares of land in Survey Nos. 78/2 (81 'are') and 182/2 (81 'are') by order dated 25.8.1982 H 1070 NOOR SK. BHAIKAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1071 & ORS. pursuant to the certificate dated 3.8.1982 issued to him A being a project affected person, as his house and agricultural lands had been acquired in terms of the Notification u/s 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1897 in respect of which the award was made on 16.7.1979. Later, on an application filed by respondent No.5 B before the Collector pointing out that the land which was handed over to the appellant on 25.8.1982 was in fact from survey No. 7S/1 and not from Survey No. 78/2 and the said land was not even the subject matter of the acquisition, the Collector directed an inquiry. Consequently, it was C found that while handing over possession of 81 'ares' of land purportedly out of Survey No. 78/2, the Circle Inspector had committed an error in marking the boundaries, and possessi·on of wrong agricultural land was handed over to the appellant on 23.8.1982. The D Collector, therefore, by order dated 28.9.1987 directed that the area allotted to the appellant as per original order dated 23.8.1982 needed a change. Accordingly, the Tehsildar issued an' order to the Circle Inspector on 5.10.1987 to take corrective steps. The appellant E challenged the order in a writ petition before the High Cou'rt, which·though did not accept the claim of the appellant, but while finally disposing of the writ petition directed the State Authorities inter alia to allot the alternative land in Survey No. 23/1 to the appellant. The F order was challenged by the appellant in the instant appeal Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The right of the appellant was to seek G agricultural land under the provisions of the Re- settlement Act, 1965 and in so far as that right was protected, the appellant could not ask for a particular land. Some distance between the offered land and the H 1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A land which was in dispute has rightly not been considered to be a sufficient ground for requiring the Court to grant the relief prayed for. The grant of relief in relation to the alternate land cannot be faulted with inasmuch as if there was a mistake committed by the B Revenue Authorities which was subsequently corrected, no advantage can be claimed by the appellant in that regard, particularly when the mistake was in relation to a root controversy. The land which was not subject matter of the acquisition could not be treated as the land having c been offered to the appellant validly and in accordance with law. [para 5] [1078-C-F] 1.2. The High Court has passed multifold directions in relation to granting of alternate land and conducting of an enquiry by the competent authority as well. Thus, D the directions sufficiently take care of the interes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.