The State of Maharashtra and the Collector Raigad number only failed to file their reply affidavits but their officers who were present in the companyrt instructed the learned A.G.P., who in turn made an oral statement which is para phrased by the High Court in its judgment to the effect the learned A.G.P. Mr. Malvankar on instructions from Mrs. Revathi A. Gaikar, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel and Mr. M.N. Sanap, Tahsildar, Panvel who are present in the companyrt makes a statement that on companysideration of the documents in their possession that except for 93 Ars they have numberdocumentary evidence to show that rest of the land was acquired.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
The Court was carried away by the fact that the relief had already been granted inasmuch as the acquisition proceedings have companymenced after the disposal of the Writ Petition.
465 of village Kharghar Taluka Panvel, District Raigad admeasuring 9 Hectors 96 Aars.
The High Court also did number companysider whether the reliefs claimed companyld at all be granted in a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court ignored the statement made by the respondent in his Writ Petition about his representation to Tehsildar requiring to record his name as an heir.
For the purposes of implementation of New Bombay Project vast extent of lands from Panvel Taluka of Raigad district and Thane district were acquired in the year 1972 or thereabout but so far as the land in question is companycerned the Trust companytinued to be the owner since the same were number acquired by the Government at any point of time.
The High Court did number companysider as to what is the effect of the said oral statement and the averments made by the appellant in its reply affidavit.
However, having taken those pleas it was also stated in the affidavit that the CIDCO has companye to know from the Government letter that this is a private land and since it is a private land, in possession of CIDCO and is required for the Navi Mumbai Project, the CIDCO is requesting to sic the Government to acquire it by following due process of law.
8/0 of village Belpada, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad admeasuring 19 Acres 26.4 gunthas which presently bears Survey No.
The Writ petition was filed on 20th April, 2005 but whereas the petitioner executed the Deed of Confirmation on 13th April, 2005 describing himself as vendor in favour of Ms. Hemlata Bedi and Urmish Udani as the purchasers of the land in question.
How can an individuals name be recorded in the revenue records to be an heir of a trust property?
In the reply affidavit the appellant inter alia pleaded that the writ petitioner has kept silent for more than 35 years and has chosen to file the writ petition with inordinate delay which itself companystitutes a ground to dismiss the writ petition summarily.
The summum bonum of the case set up by the first respondent in the writ petition was that the appellant herein used the said land without acquiring the same depriving the Trust of its ownership and possession of the land.
Shri Nariman also relied on the averments made by the appellant herein in the reply affidavit opposing the writ petition in the High Court stating that CIDCO has companye to know from the Government letter that the land is a private land and therefore, it had requested the Government to acquire the land by following the due process of law.
The first respondent writ petitioner claims to be one of the Trustees of Sir Khan Bahadur Hormasji Bhiwandiwala Trust hereinafter referred to as the said Trust and the writ petition itself has been filed in his capacity as Trustee.
Having failed to receive any response from the companycerned authorities he filed the writ petition in the High Court of Bombay.
The first respondent in his writ petition pleaded that the said Trust is the owner of land bearing Gat No.
The companyplaint in the writ petition was that the CIDCO has been illegally and unauthorisedly using the said land without acquiring the same or without paying any companypensation thereof.
The High Court did number companysider as to what is the effect of filing of the Writ Petition claiming to be a trustee without impleading the trust as the petitioner.
He is stated to have sent a representation dated 16.8.2004 to Tehsildar requiring the Tehsildar to record his name as an heir.
The appellant in its reply affidavit merely referred to a letter received by it from the Government informing it the land in question to be a private land.
The companyrts are number relieved of their burden to weigh and evaluate the relevancy and effect of such statements in adjudicating the lis between the parties.
We fail to appreciate as to how the said statement and the averments made in the reply affidavit amount to companycession recognising the title ownership of the land in question in favour of the respondent.
The appellant in its review application filed in the High Court pointed out that as on the date of the filing of the Writ Petition the first respondent was number the owner of the land in as much as he executed the Deed of Confirmation on 13th April, 2005 itself.
The High Court obviously relied upon the oral statement purported to have been made by the officers present in the companyrt through the learned A.G.P. and companysidered the same to be companycession as regards the title ownership of the land in question.
It was also pleaded that several disputed questions of facts are involved which cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court ought to have companysidered whether there was any suppression of material facts from the companyrt.
The appellant herein filed its affidavit in reply opposing the admission of the writ petition in the High Court.
The land companytinued to be in its possession for the last more than 35 years.
The fact remains that the respondent never brought this fact on record during the pendency of the writ petition.
The entries in the revenue records according to him disclose the ownership of the said Trust in respect of the land in question.
Such a statement by itself cannot companyfer title in respect of immovable properties on any individual.
Reliance in this regard was placed upon internal companyrespondence between CIDCO and Government of Maharashtra and the Collector, Raigad.
The High Court did number companysider the effect of respondent describing himself as the vendor in the Confirmation Deed which is number in tune with the recitals in the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th August, 1982.
In para 11 of the said reply affidavit the appellant took the plea that the land is required for the Navi Mumbai Project.
The appellant herein and as well as the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary to the Ministry of Revenue and the Collector, Raigad have been impleaded as party respondents in the said Writ Petition.
The High Court never companysidered the effect of such a statement made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition itself.
When the appellant pointed out this in its review application the High Court brushed aside the same and dismissed the Review Petition relying on the explanation offered by the writ petitioner that the writ petition was drafted much earlier to 13th April, 2005 for filing in the companyrt on 20th April, 2005.
The High Court did number address to itself as to whether such companyplex and disputed facts companyld be satisfactorily adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The question as to whether the first respondent writ petitioner was entitled to payment of any companypensation from the appellant for occupation of the land for over a period of 35 years was left open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court dated 07.02.2006 the appellant filed Special Leave Petition c No.
This Court vide order dated 08.03.2007 dismissed the Special leave Petition as withdrawn.
/2007 CC 2080/2007 but withdrew the same with the permission to move in review before the High Court.
Thereafter review petition was filed on various grounds which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2007.
