RAVINDRA v. GHUGE, J. DATE
Legal Reasoning
*1* 904ra64o19gropIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD904 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 64 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7399 OF 2018WITHREVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 65 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7318 OF 2018WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5773 OF 2019 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2019WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5768 OF 2019 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.64 OF 2019SHAIKH MANJUR S/O SHAIKH CHANDVERSUSKAUSHALYABAI SUKHLAL BAJAJ THROUGH GPAASHOK SUKHLAL BAJAJ AND ORS...Shri S.G. Dodiya, Advocate i/by Shri Muley Pramod N.,Advocate for the Applicant.Shri A.N. Sikchi, Advocate i/by Shri D.R. Jethliya, Advocate, forRespondent No.1/ Original Petitioner.Shri B.B. Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and4/ UoI.... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE :- 28th June, 2024 *2* 904ra64o19gropPer Court :-1.These Review Applications have been filed withreference to the order dated 03.04.2019, passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.7318/2018 and 7399/2018.2.The Review Petitioner/ original Respondent No.5has put forth several grounds in the Review Applications. Thegist of the said grounds read thus:-(a)The impugned order was passed inadvertently,without jurisdiction, contrary to established principles of law,equity, and good conscience.(b)Errors are apparent on the face of the record,including jurisdictional issues and errors in the pleading.(c)In view of Article 225 of the Constitution of Indiar/w Rule 18(4) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High CourtAppellate Side Rules that the Single Bench lacked jurisdiction topass the impugned order.(d)This Court failed to consider that in view of Section3(H)(4) of the National Highway Act, which provision is similarto Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the CompetentAuthority has right to suo moto make a reference to the Court. *3* 904ra64o19grop(e)This Court has committed several mistakes or errorswhile passing the order under review. These errors can besummarized as (i) Failure to include the Chief Officer, MunicipalCouncil, Majalgaon as a party since the acquired land GutNo.242 is layout land and road and open space is surrendered tothe Municipal Council, (ii) misinterpretation of the Petitioner'sstatus as a stranger in the matter, when the Petitioner is not astranger, (iii) failure to consider the common use of road andopen spaces in the acquired land by the Petitioner, (iv) incorrectfindings regarding the specific land parcel under challenge, (v)incorrect statement regarding objections raised under relevantsections of the National Highways Act, and (vi) oversight ofprovisions in the award regarding compensation disbursement.(f)The Petitioner has discovered new documents andevidence that were not previously known, which could influencethe decision, if considered.(g)Documents indicate the dispute regarding theownership and possession over the acquired land, affecting thePetitioner's entitlement to compensation.(h)This Court committed serious error in setting asidethe reference proceedings, which resulted in miscarriage of *4* 904ra64o19gropjustice. (i)The Respondents’ acceptance of the award preventsthem from challenging subsequent reference orders.(j)This Court mistakenly treated both Writ Petitions asconcerning the same parcel of land, despite differences thatshould have been noted.(k)The findings made by the Court are not supported bypleadings or evidence, thus, there is violation of principles ofnatural justice.(l)The Petitioner affirms the ownership rights over aportion of the acquired land, which the Court allegedly failed toconsider.(m)The Municipal Council was a necessary party.(n)The present application in fact is not ReviewApplication, but an interim application since the Court has yetnot taken a decision on the question of costs either it iscompensation or on any other ground since the issue is keptopen. (o)The statement made by the Petitioner, which isrecorded in paragraph No.7 of the order, is the statement madeunder fear of costs of Rs.5 lacs. *5* 904ra64o19grop(p)The original Petitioner suppressed material facts andmisled the Court for personal gain.(q)Since the Petitioner has easementary rights over thelayout land, he can raise objection to the acquisition proceedings.(r)Since the reference is registered and subjudicebefore the Civil Court, the Writ Petition itself becomesinfructuous and not maintainable. (s)The order imposing costs is arbitrary andunreasonable, especially considering subsequent court orders.(t)The power of review under Article 215 of theConstitution of India is beyond the power prescribed underSection 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3.It is quite apparent from the grounds raised by theReview Petitioner that he is canvassing these Review Petitionspractically in the form of a re-hearing on the Writ Petitions itself.When the order dated 03.04.2019 was passed, extensivesubmissions of the parties were considered and it was noticedthat the Review Petitioner, who is said to be a Social Worker andtermed by the original Petitioner as a local politician, had raised afrivolous objection on 13.04.2017, only with the intention of *6* 904ra64o19gropstalling the payment of compensation or about Rs. 3 Crores to alady who was 81 years of age. This objection application is thebone of contention, wherein, there was not a whisper by thisReview Applicant that he himself had any share in SurveyNo.382. There is not a single sentence that he also has a share inthe said parcel of land. It is also not stated that he had anadjoining land.4.Today, a lengthy argument on the Review Petitionsis sought to be made and a host of grounds, as if like the WritPetitions are re-argued, have been put forth. It would be appositeto reproduce the contents of the objection application dated13.04.2017, which were before this Court as under:-" वरीलविवषयीअर्ज(cid:10)करण्यातयेतोकी, श्रीमतीकौशल्याबाई सुखलालबर्जार्जयांच्यासर्व्हे(cid:31) नं. ३८२मध्ये१९एकरर्जमीनआ(cid:31)े. भूविम अभिभलेखकाया(cid:10)लयमार्जलगावयांचेकडुनमो.र.क्र. १३३/ २००८वि2नांक०९/०६/ २००८रोर्जी०६एकर५९आरचीमोर्जणीकौशल्याबाई सुखलालबर्जार्जयांनीकेली. राष्ट्रीयम(cid:31)ामाग(cid:10)२२२साठीकौशल्याबाई सुखलालबर्जार्जयांचेकोणते(cid:31)ीक्षेत्रयारस्त्यासाठीसंपा2ीतझालेलेना(cid:31)ी. राष्ट्रीयम(cid:31)ामागा(cid:10)साठी२१७०६चौ. मी. व१९९चौ. मी. याचीमोर्जणीमो.र.क्र.२४/ २०१५वि2नांक२६/०७/ २०१६रोर्जीकरण्यातआली. (cid:31)ेक्षेत्र *7* 904ra64o19grop कौशल्याबाईसुखलालबर्जार्जयांच्यामालकीचेना(cid:31)ी. श्री. सुखलालबर्जार्ज यांनीनगरपालिलकेलावि2नांक०१/ ०८/ १९८४रोर्जीरस्तेवखुलीर्जागा १७२९०चौमीटर(cid:31)स्तांतरीतकेली. त्यातीलएकरस्ता(cid:31)ीयासंपा2ीत झालेल्याक्षेत्रामध्येयेते. शासनाचे०२एकर2गडखाणीचेक्षेत्रयासर्व्हे(cid:31) नंबरमध्येयेते. कौशल्याबाईसुखलालबर्जार्जयांनी१९एकरक्षेत्रातुन विकतीएकरक्षेत्रभुअभिभन्यास, अकृविषकरूनघेतलेवरस्त्यामध्येविकतीक्षेत्र संपा2ीतझालेयासव(cid:10)बाबीचीसखोलचौकशीकरुनश्रीमतीकौशल्याबाई सुखलालबर्जार्जयांनामावेर्जा2ेण्यातयेवुवशासनाचेनुकसानटाळावे(cid:31)ी नम्रविवनंती.” 5.After raising such an objection, the Panchanama wascarried out on 24.08.2017, which is at page No.30 of the WritPetition. The Review Petitioner was present at the time ofinspection of the land and when the Panchanama was beingcarried out, he conveniently disappeared. As a consequence ofsuch conduct of the Review Petitioner, an amount of Rs.3 crorestowards compensation payable to the original Petitioner, gotblocked and such compensation was not paid to the originalPetitioner, who was 81 years old in 2019 (now 87 years andailing).
Decision
*8* 904ra64o19grop6.When the Writ Petitions were considered by thisCourt, it was noticed that, the loss of interest on thecompensation amount, calculating even @ 6% interest perannum, she lost a total interest of Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine lakhsonly). It is in this backdrop that this Court granted costs ofRs.5,00,000 (Five lakhs only) to the original Petitioner forcompensating her. The original Petitioner showed hermagnanimity by donating Rs.25,000 (Twenty Five thousandsonly) for the treatment of poor patients in the GovernmentMedical College and Hospital (GHATI) at ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar and Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five thousands only) forthe treatment of cancer patients in the Government CancerHospital at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 7.The Review Petitioner had pleaded before this Courtthat the costs may not be imposed. This Court assigned reasonsin paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the order, sought to be reviewed,justifying costs and in fact, though the original Petitioner lostinterest of Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine lakhs), this Court granted onlyRs.5,00,000/- (Five lakhs). It would be apposite to reproduceparagraph Nos.8 and 9 of the said order, here under:- *9* 904ra64o19grop“8. The learned Senior Advocate takes instructionsfrom the son of the petitioner and submits thatthe petitioner, who is now 78 years of age andis appearing through her son, who is also 61years of age, has not received hercompensation of Rs. 3 Crores for the last about12 months only because of the interference ofrespondent No. 5, who claims to be apolitician. He, therefore, prays for interest atthe rate of 6% per annum for the last 12months on the amount of Rs. 3 Crores, whichwas blocked only because of such vague andambiguous objections. The said compensationwould be around Rs.9 Lakhs. However, oninstructions, the learned Senior Advocatesubmits that the respondent No. 5 should paythe interest of only Rs.5 Lakhs, out of which,the petitioner would donate Rs. 25,000/ for thetreatment of the poor patients in theGovernment Hospital, Aurangabad, and Rs.25,000/ for the treatment of Cancer patients atShaskiya Karkarog Rugnalaya, Aurangabad.9. Though, the learned advocate for respondentNo. 5 pleads that no interest be charged or nocosts be imposed, I am unable to accept hisrequest for two reasons. Firstly, that thepetitioner herself reduced the interest from Rs.9 Lakhs to Rs. 5 Lakhs and secondly, litigantslike respondent No. 5, who obstruct any suchacquisition matter, at the stage of disbursementof large amounts of money, should learn alesson that they cannot play with the law andcannot abuse the process of law for personalgains. The panchnama on record indicates thatrespondent No. 5 appeared before the revenueauthorities and declared that though hisproperty is not involved in the acquisitionprocess, he would go to the Court and start alitigation. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 denies this, despite such revenue records.” *10* 904ra64o19grop8.It is well settled in the light of Lily Thomas vs.Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650, S. Madhusudhan Reddyvs. V. Narayana Reddy and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1034and Pancham Lal Pandey vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra andothers, 2023 SCC Online SC 143, that in a matter of review, theparties are not permitted to reopen the Writ Petition and addressthe Court as if the Writ Petition is being re-argued.9.In view of the above, both the Review Applications,being devoid of merits, are dismissed.10.A statement is made by the original Petitioner, whois now 87 years of age and said to be bedridden, that she bepermitted to withdraw the said amount. The same is kept in aFixed Deposit Receipt in a nationalized Bank. The Registry ofthis Court is, therefore, directed to allow the original Petitioner towithdraw the said amount along with interest, except Rs.50,000/-(Fifty thousand) out of which, Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Fivethousand) would be transferred to the Government MedicalCollege and Hospital (GHATI) at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and25,000/- (Twenty Five thousand) to the Government Cancer *11* 904ra64o19gropHospital at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.11.The pending Civil Applications would not surviveand stand disposed off. kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)