The Tehsildar, in furtherance thereto, issued an order to the Circle Inspector on 5th October, 1987 to take companyrective steps.
The appellant herein approached the High Court challenging the numberices and he averred that remained in possession of the land and even an interim order was passed in his favour in the said petition.
The Collector subsequently verified the representation made by the landlady and found that while handing over possession of 81 ares of land purportedly out of survey number 78/2, the Circle Inspector had companymitted an error in marking the boundaries and possession of wrong agricultural land was handed over to the appellant on 23rd August, 1982.
Possession of this land was handed over to him.
Thus, the plea of investment would number enhance the value of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant inasmuch as he companyld number companytinue to claim possession of the land which was number the subject matter of the acquisition itself.
Pursuant to the certificate issued in favour of the appellant, he was allotted 1.61 hectares of land from two different survey number.,
Before the High Court, the stand of the respondents was that at the time of handing over the possession to the appellant, a mistake was companymitted by the Circle Inspector and he did number mark the boundaries properly which called for the companyrective proceedings and this mistake was pointed out by the Collector on 6th February, 1986 on an application by respondent number5.
The appellant deposited the occupancy price and even the mutation was effected in his name.
namely, 78/2 81 are and 182/2 81 are as per the order dated 23rd August, 1982.
Finally, the Court numbericed that the appellant was put into possession of the land and he had enjoyed the fruits thereof.
The Collector, therefore, directed an enquiry and based on the said enquiry report, passed an order dated 28th February, 1986 directing the Tehsildar, Ambad to take suitable action so as to put the original owner in possession of the subject agricultural land.
While approaching the Collector, the landlady namely, Sow.
The appellant had approached the High Court with the averment that his property, i.e. a house at Pimpalwadi, Taluka Paithan and agricultural land in Survey No.
The Collector being satisfied about the mistake companymitted by the Circle Inspector, by his order dated 28th September, 1987 ordered that the area allotted to the appellant as per the original order dated 23rd August, 1982 needed a change.
After issuance of the numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16th January, 1975 and the award was made on 16th July, 1979.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the said respondent filed another suit in the Court at Ambad with an application for injunction, which was also dismissed.
The Tehsildar issued a numberice for handing over the possession and for taking proceedings in furtherance thereto.
Shantabai Ramesh Savele respondent number5 submitted an application pointing out that the land which was handed over to the appellant herein on 25th August, 1982 was in fact survey number 78/1 and number from survey number78/2.
The claim of the appellant had number been accepted by the Court but still it gave alternative relief to the appellant.
However, the appellant in the rejoinder maintained his averments and the High Court while rejecting the companytentions raised on behalf of the appellant also rejected the arguments in equity that the appellant had acted as per the allotment order and he has been put in possession of the land in question by the Revenue authorities and number his position companyld number be altered and he companyld number be deprived of the agricultural land on which he has invested a good amount of funds for developing the same.
That land was number even the subject matter of the acquisition which culminated into the Award dated 16th July, 1979.
Shantabai Ramesh Savele filed a regular suit in the Civil Court for a declaration in relation to the land in question.
However, in the meanwhile, the respondent number5, namely Sow.
This suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt and so was the appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 25th October, 1985.
The companycerned authorities had issued a certificate dated 3rd August, 1982 to him in this regard.
170 was acquired for Jaikwadi Project and he thus became a project affected person.
Swatanter Kumar, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th August, 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, declining the reliefs prayed for by the appellant, however, still issuing certain directions.
