High Court
Legal Reasoning
1cp-192-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CONTEMPT PETITION NO.192 OF 2024INWRIT PETITION NO.8126 OF 2020Asif Khan s/o Haji Ismail Khan Age : 54 years, Occ: Agri & Business,R/o : Standard Silk Mills Compound,Paithan Road, Aurangabad...PetitionerVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Public Works Department,Mantralaya Mumbai2.Astik Kumar PandeyThe District Collector,Aurangabad.3.Rajesh JoshiThe Sub Divisional Officer and, Competent Authority,National Highway No. 211, Aurangabad4.Ravindra S IngaleThe Project Director,National Highway, P.I.U.B-23,Near Kamgar Chowk, Jaibhawani Nagar,N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad.5.Vijay ChaujanUpper Tahsildar, Aurangabad… Respondents….Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGPfor Respondent/State. Mr. Amol M. Patale, Advocate for Respondent No.3.Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.….CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ROHIT W.JOSHI, JJ. 2cp-192-2024.odt RESERVED ON : 19th DECEMBER, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 14th JANUARY, 2025JUDGMENT (Per Rohit W. Joshi, J.):-1.The Petitioner in the present contempt petition had initiallyfiled a petition, being Writ Petition No.8126 of 2020. In the said WritPetition the Petitioner contended that he was owner of a portion of landadmeasuring 0 H. 81 R., being a part of Gut No.15 (total area 2 H. 37R.) of village Malewada, Taluka and District Aurangabad. 2.The petitioner claimed that a portion admeasuring 0 H. 03 R.i.e., 300 sq.mtrs. of land owned by him was acquired for the purpose ofwidening of Dhule-Solapur stretch of National Highway No.211. Heclaims that although, he was entitled to receive compensation for theacquired land, the compensation was wrongly awarded to Smt.Subhadra Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole on thebasis of no objection issued by one Janardhan Gangadhar Dhating(minor, represented by guardian Chandrakala Gangadhar Dhating). Heclaims that notice of the acquisition proceedings was not served onhim. However, when possession of the land was being taken he realisedthat land owned by him was acquired for the purpose of road wideningand accordingly, he made application dated 14.05.2018 raisingobjection and claiming compensation for the acquired land.3.Since, the efforts made through representations for claiming
Decision
3cp-192-2024.odtcompensation did not yield any positive results, the petitioner filed apetition before this Court, being Writ Petition No.8126 of 2020. It willbe pertinent to mention that prior to filing of the said petition thepetitioner had filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.752 of 2019claiming practically the same reliefs as were sought in the said petition.When this fact was confronted to the petitioner during the course ofhearing of the petition on 27.09.2022 a statement was made on behalfof the petitioner that an application for withdrawal of the civil suit wasalready filed and that the suit would be withdrawn, accordingly, and onthe basis of the aforesaid statement, the matter was taken up forhearing. The matter came up for hearing on 10.03.2023. Office notedated 09.03.2023 indicates that despite directions to place orderregarding withdrawal of civil suit No.752 of 2019, no document wasfiled to indicate withdrawal of the said suit. The petition came to bedecided finally by order dated 10.03.2023. The petition was notpressed and came to be disposed of accordingly vide order dated10.03.2023. However, directions were issued to respondent No.4 in thesaid petition (it appears to be a typographical error and it should berespondent no.3-the competent authority under NHAI Act) to treat thepetition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioner withrespect to payment of compensation for 0.03 HR land in Gut no.15. Thesaid exercise was directed to be completed within a period of ten weeks 4cp-192-2024.odtfrom 20.03.2023, i.e., the date fixed for appearance of the partiesbefore respondent No.3.4.The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition inwhich the substantive relief claimed is that the respondents should bedirected to pay amount of compensation for 0.03 HR land in gut no.15to him. He has also prayed that the respondent should be directed tocarry out measurement of gut no.15 in order to determine exact area ofland owned by him which has been utilized for the purpose of roadwidening with further directions to determine and pay compensationfor the additional land.5.The petitioner claims that the claim has been decided andpartly allowed by the competent authority vide order dated 26.04.2023.This appears to be the foundation for the prayer for issuing directionsfor remittance of compensation with respect to 0.03 HR land. Perusal ofthe order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector andCompetent Authority (Land Acquisition), NHAI, Aurangabad indicatesthat the claim of the petitioner has been allowed to the extent ofentitlement to receive compensation for 0.03 HR, i.e., 300 sq. mtrs. ofland in Gut No. 15. Accordingly, directions were issued to the ProjectDirector, NHAI, Aurangabad to deposit sum of Rs.22,29,268/- towardscompensation to be paid to the petitioner for his 0.03 HR, i.e., 300 5cp-192-2024.odtsq.mtrs of land in gut no.15. 6.In response to the directions dated 26.04.2023 issued by thecompetent authority, the Deputy General Manager (Technical) andProject Director, NHAI, Aurangabad has issued communication dated 5thAugust 2023 to the Competent Authority, inter alia, requesting that theamount of compensation initially paid to other persons should berecovered and the same should be paid to the person entitled to receivethe same. Thus, respondent no.4 did not deposit the amount as directedby the competent authority. 7.At this stage, we may refer to the replies filed by respondentNos.2 and 3 in the Writ Petition. Respondent No.3-the CompetentAuthority has stated in paragraph 11 of reply dated 28.07.2021 that asper re-measurement carried out by the office of Deputy Superintendentof Land Records, the area admeasuring 500 sq. mtrs. belonging toJanardhan Gangadhar Dhating was shown in the name of Jalba AbbasGaikwad to the extent of 200 sq. mtrs and in the name of petitioner tothe extent of 300 sq. mtrs. Thereafter, it is stated that since the re-measurement was done after passing of the award and disbursement ofcompensation amount, the petitioner was only entitled to recover theamount from the persons to whom it was paid and not from theCompetent Authority or respondent No.4-National Highways Authority 6cp-192-2024.odtof India (“NHAI”). The reply of respondent No.4 dated 19.07.2021 inthe said petition is also on similar lines. Respondent No.4 has alsoaccepted that in fact land of the petitioner was acquired to the extent of0.03 HR, i.e., 300 sq. mtrs. However, it is stated that since thecompensation has already been disbursed the compensation cannot bedirected to be paid to the petitioner once again. In this context, whenwe refer to the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 26.04.2023pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, we find that the saidorder is passed after hearing the petitioner as well as Smt. SubhadraParasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole. The order reflectsthat having realised that the compensation was erroneously paid toSmt. Subhadra Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole, therespondent No.3 had already taken steps for initiation of RRCproceedings for recovery of amount of compensation paid to them. Therespondent No.3 has also directed the respondent No.4 vide clause-3 ofthe operative order to deposit amount of compensation ofRs.22,29,268/- for payment to the petitioner towards acquisition of 300sq.mtrs, i.e., 0.03 HR land in Gut No.15. 8.The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 isthat the order dated 26.04.2023 does not decide the claim of thepetitioner finally, in as much as, vide clause-2 of the order, joint re- 7cp-192-2024.odtmeasurement is directed to be conducted by the office of DeputySuperintendent of Land Records in order to determine how much landof different co-owners of Gut No.15 is actually covered underacquisition for National Highway No.211. The contention of respondentNo.4 is liable to be rejected. It is contrary to express statements made inthe replies filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition as alsoin the affidavit in reply dated 06.03.2024 filed in the present petition.The statements made in the replies on oath are completely binding onrespondent No.4. The statements made in the replies of respondentNos.3 and 4 are completely binding on them. We may refer to judgmentof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nagindas Ramdas vs.Dalpatram Locharam Alias Brijram and Ors. reported in AIR 1974 SC471, wherein, it is clearly stated that the admission in pleading iscompletely binding on the party and such admission by itself can be afoundation of any claim against the party concerned. The Hon’bleSupreme Court in para No.26 of the judgment has held as under:-“26 … Admissions if true and clear are by far the best proof of thefacts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissionadmissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the partiesor their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higherfooting than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions arefully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver ofproof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights ofthe parties. On the other hand evidentiary admissions which arereceivable at the rival as evidence are by themselves not conclusive.They can be shown to be wrong.” 8cp-192-2024.odt9.The fact that steps were taken for initiation of RCC againstSmt. Subhadra Parasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Holewould further fortify the case of the petitioner that it is his land to theextent of 300 sq. mtrs. which is acquired and accordingly he is entitledfor compensation in lieu of the same. 10.The directions in the order dated 26.04.2023 regardingfurther re-measurement is in relation to finding out further area thatmight have been affected by the road. The said direction is independentof the direction issued for payment of compensation for 0.03 HR, i.e,300 sq. mtrs. of the land of the petitioner. There are clear findings inthe order to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to receivecompensation for 300 Sq. Mtrs i.e. 0.03 HR land in Gut No.15.11.Since respondent No.4 had not deposited the amount asdirected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 26.04.2023, we havepassed order dated 21.10.2024 directing respondent No.4 to depositthe amount in the Court. Respondent No.4 has accordingly depositedthe amount. Since the land of the petitioner is acquired without hisconsent by exercising eminent domain and undisputedly compensationpayable to him is not paid, we deem it fit to direct payment ofcompensation amount which is payable to him. In case Smt. SubhadraParasram Wagh and Shri. Sagar Bhagwanrao Hole or any one of them 9cp-192-2024.odthas challenged the order dated 26.04.2023, the disbursement will besubject to outcome of the said proceedings. The petitioner shall fileundertaking on affidavit that in the event the matter is decided againsthim and/or it is found that he is not entitled to receive the amount ofcompensation, either in its entirety or in part, he will refund the samewithin a period of three weeks from such order. The amount bedisbursed to the petitioner only after obtaining such undertaking. 12.As regards prayer clause(d) which pertains to directions ofmeasurement of land bearing Gut No.15 for determination of extra landallegedly acquired out of Gut No.15 for which compensation has notbeen paid. We find that the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by thisCourt is restricted to decide claim of the petitioner for compensationwith respect to 0.03 HR land. Since there is no direction fordetermination of compensation for land allegedly acquired in additionto 0.03 HR. prayer clause (d) stands rejected. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly.[ROHIT W. JOSHI][SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEA.G.Narwade