Full Text
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.6 OF 2014
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.7 ]
Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban District ]
Pratapgarh Co.Op. Society, 1st
Floor, ]
Vinayak Apartment, Parel Village, ]
Opp. Halfkin institute, Parel, ]
Mumbai - 12 ] … Applicant
1. M/s. Byramjee Jeejibhoy Pvt. Ltd. ]
83, Jolly Maker Chambers II (8th
Floor) ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. ]
1A. M/s. Dharampal & Bros. (Lease Holder) ]
(by Partition Deed Shri Ramprakash Mehara ] present lease holder-died) legal heirs of ]
Ramprakash Mehara as follows Sr No.2 to 5 ]
2. Shri Jitendra Ramprakash Mehara ]
3. Smt Mona Kapil Mehara ]
4. Shri Pankaj Kapil Mehara ]
5. Shri Arjun Kapil Mehara ] address of Sr. No 2 to 5 as below ]
6D, Premkutir, 177, Backbay Reclamation, ]
Marine Drive, Mumbai-400 020 ]
6. Shivnarayan Baijanath Shukla ]
R-2/A-33 Sai Mangal C.H.S. Ltd. ]
Saisiddhi Complex, Ajgaonkar Plot, ] beside Bal Thackaray Hospital, ]
Off Western Express Highway ]
Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai – 400 060. ]
6a. Smt. Lata Shivnarayan Shukla ]
Residing at – R/2/A-33, Sai Mangal CHS Ltd. ]
Sai-Siddhi Complex, Ajgaonkar Plot ]
Near Ashmita Bhavan, Jogeshwari East, ]
Mumbai- 400 060. ]
H
7. Vijay Shivnarayan Shukla ]
R-2/A-32 Sai Mangal C.H.S. Ltd. ] beside Bal Thackaray Hospital, ]
Off Western Express Highway ]
Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai – 400 060. ]
8. Ajay Shivnarayan Shukla ]
R-2/A-31 Sai Mangal C.H.S. Ltd. ] beside Bal Thackaray Hospital, ] … Claimants
And
The Commissioner ]
Municipal Corporation Gr. Mumbai ]
Municipal Head Office, Annex. Building, ]
2nd floor, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, ]
Mumbai – 400 001. ] … Acquiring
Body
Adv. Darshit Jain, a/w Adv. Udit Raghuwanshi, Adv. Arushi Gandhi, i/by Divya Jain for the Claimant No.1.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Adv. Prashant P. Kulkarni, a/w Adv. Rachna Mamnani and Adv. Ritika
Rajeev for Claimant Nos.6A to 8.
JUDGMENT
1. This present Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) has been filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act) for determination of the apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO).
2. This reference pertains to the land situated at village Bandivali, Tal. Andheri, bearing CTS No. 249 Part, 249/1 to 14, 15 to 24, admeasuring. 785.[9] sq mtrs. The said land was acquired by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for construction of a rail overbridge. In the award, the SLAO recorded that Claimant No.1 (“C-1”) is the owner of the land. However, he erroneously noted that the land was leased to Claimant 1A to Claimant 5, while Claimants 6 to 8 also claimed ownership without producing proof. The supposed lease entry was based on an incorrect revenue record which was subsequently rectified.
3. Consequently, Claimant No. 1, who acquired the land under a duly registered indenture dated 21 July 1951 and was in possession at the time of acquisition, is the exclusive owner.
4. Claimant Nos. 1A to 5 never executed any lease deed, nor have asserted any interest in the land. They filed no claim before the SLAO, did not submit any reply or evidence in this reference, and did not offer themselves for cross-examination.
5. Claimants Nos. 6 to 8, on the other hand, claim to be owners. Their documents show otherwise. At best they are ‘emlamalak’ (structure owners). These structures in question are illegal and unauthorized. These claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to establish ownership or the legality of the structures. Pertinently, they have already been paid shifting charges and resettled as Project Affected Persons (“PAPs”). In law, they cannot seek further compensation, as that would amount to a double benefit.
6. In view of the above, the Claimant No. 1 is exclusively entitled to receive entire compensation amount of Rs. 60,05,027/- (Sixty Lakh Five Thousand Twenty-seven) awarded by the SLAO.
7. None represents Claimants Nos.1A to 5.
8. Mr. Prashant Kulkarni representing Claimants Nos.6A, 7 and 8, relies upon certain documents and cross-examination of Claimant No. 1’s Director, Mr. Madhusudan Vakharia. He submits that Claimant No. 1 admittedly did not initiate legal action against late Mr. Baijnath Shukla for recovery of possession, and was unaware that Mr. Baijnath Shukla’s name appeared in the 7/12 extracts. No proceedings were taken to challenge those entries. Sr. No. Date Event Page Nos. 1 16.06.2008 Claimant No. 6 to 8 submitted documents and letter to SLAO regarding the acquired land. 6 & 7 of the 2 15.09.2008 Reminder letter to SLAO claiming ownership. 8 & 9 3 15.01.2007 In Award (Sr. No. 5), GR dated 13.12.1977 records that Late Shivnarayan Shukla claimed ownership; ownership dispute noted as unresolved 97 of the 4 15.01.2007 Award shows name of Grandfather of Claimant No. 7 & 8 at Sr. No. 5 & 6 with CTS 34 of the numbers. 5 28.12.2007 Possession handed over by Claimant no. 6 to 8 63 of the
9. Apart from the above, Mr. Kulkarni submits that his clients were in uninterrupted possession of the land until acquisition and that possession was taken by the acquiring body. He further submits certain original documents were destroyed in the 2005 floods, leaving them with only true-copies which have been relied upon.
10. In response, Mr. Jain, for Claimant No. 1, submits that the Claimants Nos.[6] to 8 have not produced any ownership documents. Their story about documents being lost in floods is unsubstantiated, not even supported by a police report. He highlights contradictions – e.g., admitted that some documents kept in the same cupboard survived, making it implausible that others were destroyed.
11. Mr. Jain further submits that Claimant No. 8 alleged agreement or sale deed has also no basis. Even if it existed, it was unregistered and therefore inadmissible. He draws attention to Claimant No. 8’s contradictory deposition: on one hand claiming an agreement was executed and destroyed in floods, on the other hand admitting uncertainty about whether any such agreement was executed.
12. Mr. Jain submits that even assuming a sale deed existed, the names of Claimants 6 to 8 were never entered in the property card. Relying on Sanjay Sharma Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank,[1] he argues that, ownership can be claimed only under registered documents. He highlights contradictions: earlier the claimants stated that the Claimant No. 1 sold to Claimant Nos. 1A to 5, who in turn sold to Claimant No. 6 to 8 (letter dated 6th June 2008, at page no. 7A). Later, they altered their version, claiming purchase directly from Claimant No. 1 but avoiding naming the earlier owner. This, he submits, casts serious doubts.
13. He further submits that even if Claimant 1A to 5 were lessees, they could not transfer a higher right to Claimant 6 to 8.
14. Thus, if Claimants Nos. 1A to 5 were merely lessees, they could never have transferred ownership to Claimants Nos. 6 to 8. The vague and inconsistent averments regarding agreements between these Claimants raise serious doubts about their existence.
15. Mr. Jain submits that at best the Claimant Nos. 6 to 8 were “emlamalak” (structure owners). and in fact illegal, unauthorized occupants. Referring to State of Maharashtra V. Shrimant Govindrao, and State of Orissa V. Rajakishore Das[3], he submits that illegal occupants cannot claim compensation.
16. He submits that Claimant No. 8’s evidence is hearsay, having no 2024 Live Law SC 1054 personal knowledge. His Affidavit-in-lieu of examination in chief was admittedly drafted by his Advocate.
17. He points out that Claimant 1 purchased the land in 1951, whereas Claimants Nos. 6 to 8 claim ownership from 1955. Claimant No. 8 himself was born only on 22nd December 1981, and could not possibly have personal knowledge of prior transactions, particularly in absence of documents.
18. The written submissions record Claimant No. 8’s own admission that the facts in his affidavits were narrated by his father. The evidence in paragraph No.40 in which reads as follows: “40. The Fact contained in my said affidavit dated 3rd September 2024 were narrated by my father. (C-8 W-1, Q/A 25) “that facts contained in my said additional evidence affidavit dated 4th April 2025 were narrated by my father.” (C[8] W-1, Q/A 26)”.
19. Astonishingly, Q/A[4] 35, Claimant No. 8 admitted that he read the contents of the Evidence Affidavit dated 3rd September 2024 for the first time, only after it had been notarized. In Q/A 36 to 40, when asked whether he had read it before or after notarization, he had repeatedly stated that he did not remember.
20. In Q/A 42, 70 and 72 Claimant 8 admitted to having no knowledge of the earlier owner and has made incorrect statements.
21. Mr. Jain points out that possession of the land was admittedly Question and Answer taken from Claimant No. 1 by the SLAO and acquiring body under the emergency clause. Shifting charges were paid, and PAP’s resettled. Despite these facts and contrary to the record the Claimant No. 8 falsely claimed that the structures still existed and that Claimant NO. 6 to 8 continued collecting rents from the tenants.
22. He then demonstrates why each of the documents relied upon by Claimant No. 8 were irrelevant, the justification for which is as under: “a. Notice dated 27.01.1964 - issued by Legal Department of BMC received by grandfather of C-8 does not refer to the subject property and is not proof of ownership. b. 7/12 extract of the suit property issued by Talathi Oshiwara do not refer to the subject property, are merely revenue records and are not proofs of ownership. c. Assessment bills and CTS records do not refer to the subject property, are merely revenue records and are not proofs of ownership. d. Certified copy of judgment dated 06.05.1982 passes by Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal, Bombay in Appeals are not proofs of ownership. The Tribunal’s judgment was limited to the issue of slum clearance and did not adjudicate on the ownership of the land. It is clearly mentioned in the Award that this judgment does not prove ownership of the subject land. e. Order dated 27.06.05 passes by High Court in Writ Petition No. 791 of 2005 filed by C-8’s father. The order only directed the authorities to consider the application and give personal hearing. It does not establish ownership. The High Court did not adjudicate on the ownership of the land. f. Letter dated 09.03.07 issued by Special Land Acquisition officer No. 7 received by C-8’s father. This is marked subject to proof of contents in crossexamination. Does not establish ownership. A letter from SLAO is merely a communication and does not confer any title. g. Advocates letter dated 15.04.08 along with documents annexed thereto. This is marked subject to proof in cross-examination. Does not establish ownership. A letter from an Advocate is merely a communication and does not confer any title. h. Application dated 15.09.08 filed to Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 7. This document merely contains claims of ownership without supporting evidence. An application is merely a self-serving document and does not establish ownership.”
23. Accordingly, Mr Jain submits that the entire compensation must go exclusively to Claimant No. 1.
24. I have heard both counsels and perused the record. Claimant No. 1 has established ownership of the land by the registered indenture dated 24th July 1951, supported by possession receipt. This is recorded in the award. Other Claimants have not dislodged this.
25. The Claimant Nos. 1A to 5 have neither filed claims nor led evidence warranting an adverse inference. Claimant Nos. 6 to 8 have failed to establish any ownership and have already received shifting compensation as PAPs.
26. In State of Orissa Vs. Raja Kishor Das[5] the Supreme court held that unauthorized construction without sanction are not entitled to compensation; government may demolish such structures.
27. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade[6]
1983 SCC Online Bom 26 this Court has held trespassers cannot claim compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, as they are not “persons interested”. The Act contemplates only legal interests, not unlawful possession.
28. I find merit in Mr. Jain’s submissions. The claims of Claimants 6 to 8 appear speculative, made in the hope of windfall gains.
29. In the circumstances, I hold that Claimant No. 1 is the sole rightful owner and exclusively entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 60,05,027/- deposited in this Court.
30. I accordingly pass the following order: (a) That the Claimant No. 1 is declared the exclusive owner of the acquired land, (b) The entire compensation Rs. 60,05,027/- alongwith accrued interest thereon shall be paid to Claimant No. 1 within four weeks from the date of uploading this order on the website of the Bombay High Court.
31. The matter is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms.
32. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (KAMAL KHATA, J.)