Suresh Bapurao Landge and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy Collector, Pench Project, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- practice & procedure --review; [r.m. lodha, s.a. bobde & s.b. deshmukh, jj] power of review held, power of review is not inherent in the court and such power has to be vested in the court or quasi judicial authority by express provision or by necessary implication.f.m. reis, j.1. rule. rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of shri badhe, learned counsel for the petitioners, shri sonak, learned agp for respondents no. 1 & 3 and shri mehadia, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.2. this writ petition has been filed in respect of the acquisition of land of the petitioners and other land owners from mouza - ghatrohna, juni kamptee, gondegaon and kandri, etc. by respondent no. 2 for its project gondegaon open cast coal mines by issuing notification under sections 4 & 6 of the land acquisition act and subsequently the acquisition regarding juni kamptee and ghatrohna was dropped by not paying rehabilitation amount as required by the land acquisition officer.3. it is the case of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1992-93 and possession of lands were taken by respondent no. 2 in 1994 by paying some advance compensation subject to determination of compensation in land acquisition cases under land acquisition act. but these proceedings were dropped in the year 1998 and the compensation payable is sought to be determined by respondent no. 2 without negotiating with the petitioners and other land owners from juni kamptee/ ghatrohana. despite various representations made by the petitioners from time to time to respondent no. 2 and concerned authorities, they did not determine the compensation and such act resulted in injustice to the petitioners. it is further the case of the petitioners that respondent no. 2 is forcing the petitioners to accept the most inadequate compensation decided without following due procedure unilaterally and arbitrarily and consequently depriving the petitioners compensation as provided under the land acquisition act. as such the petitioners have filed the present writ petition with following prayers which read as under:(i) call for the record of revenue case no. 23/a-65/1992-93 of mouza ghatrohana, p.h. no. 13 and revenue case no. 24/a-65/1992-93 of mouza juni kamptee closed by the respondent no. 1 in view of the non payment of the amounts regarding rehabilitation charges etc. and after going through the same be further pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to return the respective lands of the petitioners within specified time and direct the respondents to handover its vacant possession to the petitioner within specified time, as the land acquisition proceedings having dropped and consequently the notification under section 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act in the above case having lapsed, the respondent no. 2 is not entitled to acquire the land of the petitioners.(ii) direct the respondent no. 2 to pay damages rs. 10,000/- per acre per years to the petitioners with effect from 1994 till the respondents handover the possession of the respective land to the petitioners.4. on notice being served respondent no. 2 has filed submissions on 18.6.2007. it is the contention of respondent no. 2 that respondent no. 1 by letter dated 20.9.1996 called upon respondent no. 2 to execute the agreement in favour of state government for the resettlement/rehabilitation of the land owners in accordance with the state government circular dated 15.11.1991. it was their case that the circular is not applicable to the said acquisition because the land is being acquired for the central government. it is further their contention that as the land was urgently required by respondent no. 2 for the project, in the month of november 1994 they have taken possession of the land under an agreement with the land holders by making advance payment of rs. 35,000/- per hectare. it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid as per award of respondent no. 1. consent was also given by respondent no. 2 to give employment to one person of the family of the land holder as per the policy and norms of the company and pursuance to said condition, out of 54 land holders eligible for employment, the same was given to 48 persons and cases of remaining six persons is still in process. it is further their contention that 33 land owners have already accepted the payment in full and final settlement and executed sale deeds in favour of respondent no. 2, however, the petitioners were demanding exorbitant amount towards compensation and refused to execute the sale deeds. it is further their contention that they were always ready and willing to make the payment of reasonable compensation amount and consequently it is their submission that the present writ petition deserves to be rejected.5. after hearing the learned counsel for parties and perusing the records, we find that there is a serious dispute on facts with regard to the rival contentions raised by the parties. it is an admitted fact that the possession of the land was taken over by respondent no. 2 pursuant to the negotiations between the petitioners and respondent no. 2. in fact an agreement to that effect has been executed and even an advance towards payment of compensation was also received by the petitioners. it is not in dispute that the possession was not taken by respondent no. 2 in accordance with the provisions of land acquisition act. the rights of the parties on the basis of said agreement executed between respondent no. 2 and the petitioners will have to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the respective parties to ascertain whether the petitioners are entitled for delivery of possession of said land or on the other hand respondent no. 2 is entitled to remain with the land and pay compensation as agreed in terms of said agreement executed between the parties. these disputes on facts cannot be decided in a petition under articles 226 and 227 of constitution of india as for determination of such serious disputed questions of facts, evidence will have to be adduced by rival parties.6. the full bench of this court in the judgment in the case of tulsiwadi navnirman coop. housing society ltd. v. state of maharashtra reported at 2008 (2) mah. l. r. 224, has held in para 96 as under:96. thus, what emerges from these decisions is that:a) there are self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of plenary and constitutional powers.b) they are not be exercised for the asking and merely because it is lawful to exercise them.c) they are not meant to replace the ordinary remedy of a civil suit or statutory remedy.d) the powers under article 226 will not be exercised in cases involving serious dispute about the right to claim the relief in writ jurisdiction. if such issues or questions are to be determined and decided by elaborate examination of evidence.e) lastly, the power will not be exercised to facilitate avoidance of contractual obligations voluntarily incurred.7. in the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in the case of p.r. murlidharan and ors. v. swamy dharmananda theertha padar and ors. reported at : 2006 (4) scc 501, it has been observed that the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary. a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit. it is also observed that writ petition cannot be made a forum for adjudicating civil rights. a writ of mandamus cannot be converted into a proceeding seeking relief for adjudication of civil rights. the hon'ble apex court further observed that the wide jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situation.8. considering the facts of present case, we find that there are serious disputes with regard to contractual obligation based on the agreements executed between the petitioners and respondent no. 2. on one hand the petitioners contend that employment was not provided as contemplated in the said agreement and on the other hand respondent no. 2 states that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. on the face of such contentions of the parties, an adjudication would be necessary in an appropriate forum as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to retrieve the possession of the land from respondent no. 2 or not. such adjudication will have to be done by adducing evidence by the parties to decide the dispute. as such, we find that the present writ petition does not deserve to be entertained.9. the parties are at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings to get their rights adjudicated in appropriate forum. in case such proceedings are initiated, the issues raised by the parties in the present petition are left open and same will have to be decided on merits, based on evidence.10. in view of the above, the present writ petition does not deserve to be entertained and the same is dismissed. rule discharged.