Deputy Collector v. M/s. Vasinaka Sahakari Mandal

1. On 09/10/2025, this Court passed the following order: “. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the preliminary issue with regard to the question, as to whether this Court, as the Reference Court, can go into the question of the relevant date of notification, which would be the basis for NESARIKAR determination of compensation, needs to be considered at the outset.

2. The learned counsel for the parties are ready with their submissions and judgments, upon which they wish to rely.

3. Hence, list this reference proceeding for hearing on the said preliminary issue, on 12th November 2025 at 03.00 p.m.”

2. On 12/11/2025, this reference could not be taken for consideration and hence it was adjourned to be eventually heard today on the aforesaid preliminary issue raised on behalf of the beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).

3. Mr. Gavnekar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the preliminary issue sought to be raised with regard to jurisdiction of this Court for determining the question regarding relevant date of notification has to be answered in favour of the claimant. It is submitted that this Court while exercising jurisdiction of the Reference Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), is to determine amongst other things, the amount of compensation payable to the claimant, keeping in mind the matters to be considered for determining compensation u/s 23 of the LA Act. It was submitted that when the whole purpose of the reference proceeding, which is an original proceeding, is to determine the market value of the land and consequently the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant, the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined is clearly covered u/s 18 of the LA Act as well as within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the claimant referred to provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and the aforesaid provisions of LA Act and invited attention of this Court to the two notifications that are subject matter of the debate in this case dated 03/04/1998 and 21/09/2011. It was submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akkalkot Municipal Council Vs. Vasantrao Tulsiram Kharade & Ors., as reported in 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 311, while considering a substantive Appeal under the LA Act, entered into the question as to which was the relevant date for fixing market value of the acquired property in the context of the two notifications that were placed on record. It was submitted that in the facts of the said case, the Division Bench of this Court held that the subsequent notification was relevant.

4. On this basis it was submitted that this Court can certainly exercise jurisdiction to resolve the controversy regarding which of the notifications would be the relevant notification in the present case for determination of the market value of the acquired land.

5. In support of the contention that specific factors need to be taken into consideration while determining the market value by Reference Court u/s 18 of the LA Act, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil, as reported in 2010 (2), Mh.L.J. 387. Reliance was also placed on Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd and Another Vs. Special Duty Collector (Land Acquisition), as reported in (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 59.

6. Apart from this, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the claimant had filed a Writ Petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.1010 of 2010. By an amendment the claimant had incorporated prayers in the said Writ Petition raising this very issue with regard to the applicability of the notification of the year 2011 for determining the market value of the acquired land.

7. By an order dated 13/12/2023, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing that the aforesaid issue shall be decided by the Reference Court while deciding all other issues raised in the Reference proceedings. On a Special Leave Petition being filed against the said order of the Division Bench, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29/07/2024, in its order passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).29820/2024, upheld the order of the Division Bench by dismissing the SLP and further left it open for the Reference Court to decide all issues including the aforesaid issue, pertaining to the application of the relevant notification, for the purpose of determining the compensation. It was submitted that the MMRDA was party in all these proceedings and it cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the very jurisdiction of the Court to consider the said issue. On this basis, it was submitted that the preliminary issue/objection raised on behalf of the MMRDA needs to be accordingly decided.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Mone appearing for the MMRDA submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others, Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others, as reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 20, reiterated the settled position of law that only the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court exercising under Article 32/142 thereof has the power and jurisdiction to shift or postpone the date of preliminary notification. It was submitted that if this Court enters into the said question, it would amount to acting in conflict with the said position of law. It was submitted that the Supreme Court clearly laid down that shifting or postponing of the date of preliminary notification can be only be done in exceptional circumstances and certainly it cannot be undertaken by this Court in the present Reference proceedings. Learned counsel Mr. Mone also sought to rely upon numerous judgments to claim that only the first such notification could be a reference point for determining the market value and therefore, this Court cannot enter into the controversy, notwithstanding the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1010 of 2010 and the Special Leave Petition being dismissed against the order.

9. This Court has heard the rival submissions. A very narrow question arises for consideration and the same can be answered on first principles. At the outset, this Court is in agreement with the contention raised on behalf of the MMRDA that if this Court as a Reference Court does not have jurisdiction in law, to enter into such a question of examining as to which of the notifications would be the relevant notification, no order of any Court including the Supreme Court can foist jurisdiction in such a matter.

10. Therefore, it needs to be examined as to whether the MMRDA is justified in claiming that this Court in the Reference proceedings cannot even consider the question regarding relevancy of notification being raised on behalf of the claimant.

11. A perusal of section 18 of the LA Act shows that the Reference Court is required to determine, amongst other things, the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. Section 23 of the LA Act pertains to matters to be considered while determining compensation and the first clause therein requires that market value of the land has to be determined as on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the LA Act. Thus, the whole purpose of the proceeding before the Reference Court is to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimant and to determine the market value of the acquired land on the date of the notification. Thus, determining the question as to the date of the notification is clearly a part of exercise to be carried out by the Reference Court, when determining market value of the acquired land and consequently the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. Such a compensation indeed has to be just and fair compensation.

12. There can be no dispute about the fact that reference proceedings before this court are original proceedings and this has been reiterated in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil (supra). Thus, the claimant as well as the acquiring body and the beneficiary of the acquisition are entitled to lead evidence on each and every aspect of the matter concerning determination of the market value of land and consequential amount of compensation payable to the claimant.

13. In such a situation, it cannot lie in the mouth of the beneficiary of the acquisition, in this case the MMRDA, that the Reference Court cannot even consider the aforesaid question due to lack of jurisdiction. As to whether the claimant will able to make out his case that the subsequent notification dated 21/09/2011 is the only relevant notification, is a matter to be determined on merits. But, it cannot be said that at the threshold this Court would be prevented from even entering into such arena for deciding the question.