http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAN AND DIU & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI MOHANLAL LALBHAI DESAI & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/11/1999

BENCH: M.B.Shah, S.S.ahmad

JUDGMENT:

     Shah, J.

     This  appeal  by  special leave is filed  against  the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench (Goa)  dated  11.3.1987  in  Writ Petition  No.162  of  1985 whereby  the  High Court allowed the writ petition filed  by respondent  No.1  and  directed the appellants  to  take  up acquisition  proceedings in respect of respondents land  in question  and  to determine and pay just compensation  under the Land Acquisition Act.

     Admittedly,  respondent  No.1  was  in  occupation  of agricultural  land admeasuring 1,04,000 sq.  meters  bearing Entry  Nos.457  and 458 (new Survey No.326) situated in  the village  Kachigam  of Daman District.  On a proposal of  the appellants,  respondent No.1 agreed to hand over  possession of  the said land under a Kabja receipt dated 26.6.1968.  It was  made  clear  that the possession is  given  subject  to respondent  No.1  being  paid compensation in terms  of  and according  to  laws relating to acquisition in  force.   The case   of   respondent  No.1  is   that  he  was  not   paid compensation.   Sometime in the year 1968, the Collector  of Daman  issued  a  show cause notice  bearing  No.4363  dated 16.10.1968  calling upon respondent No.1 to show cause as to why  the  said land be held not vested in Government on  the ground that the same was grass or pasture land.  That notice was  challenged by filing Writ Petition before the  Judicial Commissioner.   Writ  Petition  was finally allowed  as  the statement  was made on behalf of appellants that show  cause notice issued by the Collector had been withdrawn.  Based on the  said  statement the notice was quashed by the  Judicial Commissioner.   Again, on 11.10.1976 the Mamlatdar of  Daman issued  notice to respondent No.  1 calling upon him to show cause why it should not be declared that the land had vested in  the Government, pursuant to the provisions of the  Daman (Abolition  of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation,  1962 (for  short the Regulation).  After recording the evidence led  by the parties (including on behalf of the State by the Circle   Inspector),  the  Mamlatdar  by  his  order   dated 30.9.1983  withdrew the said notice and dropped the  further proceedings for the reason that he found respondent No.1 was cultivating  the land at the relevant date, and,  therefore,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

it  was  not  a pasture or grass land.  This order  was  not challenged  by the appellants.  Thereafter in the year 1984, respondent   No.    1  made   representations   to   various authorities  of the State for compensation in respect of his land  taken  over for Seed Farm.  By order dated  21.6.1985, the Directorate of Agriculture, Panaji rejected the claim of respondent  No.   1 for payment of compensation  by  holding that  the land taken over from respondent No.  1 was pasture or  grass  land and, therefore, the question of  payment  of compensation  fell  outside  the purview of  the  law.   The respondent  challenged  the said order by  filing  aforesaid writ petition before the High Court.  The High Court allowed the  writ  petition  and  held that respondent  No.   1  was divested  of vast land on 26.6.1968 against a representation that  the  same  was required for a public purpose  for  the establishment  of  multipurpose  seed farm  and  appropriate acquisition  proceedings  would be drawn up and he would  be paid adequate compensation under the law.  The possession of the land was taken from respondent No.  1 on 26.6.1968 under a solemn representation that respondent No.  1 would be paid due  compensation  according to law in force.  In  the  year 1976,  the Mamlatdar issued a notice to show cause as to why the said land being pasture or grass land should not be held to  have  vested in Government.  The Mamlatdar by his  order dated  30.9.1983, after recording the evidence, withdrew the said   notice  and  dropped   further  proceedings   against respondent no.1.  Hence, respondent No.1 is entitled to have compensation  of  the land under the Land  Acquisition  Act. That order is challenged in this appeal.

     In our view, considering the facts as stated above, it is  apparent that the order passed by the High Court is just and  legal.   The  Kabja receipt dated  26.6.1968  which  is produced  on  record  of this Court  clearly  mentions  that possession  of  land  was handed over on the  condition  and assurance  that compensation was to be paid as per the rules and regulations of the Government.  Apart from the fact that the question whether the land was pasture or grass land on the  relevant  date  is pure question of fact, there  is  no evidence on record to establish that the land was grass land which  vested in the State Government.  The learned  counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to point out any such  evidence.   At  the time of taking possession  of  the land,  it is nowhere mentioned that the land was pasture  or grass  land.  Further taking over possession, the  Collector issued  show  cause notice for that purpose and that  notice was  challenged  before  the High Court.  On behalf  of  the Government,  it  was stated before the High Court  that  the notice be quashed.  Hence, the Court quashed the said notice keeping  the  other  issues open.  If the land was  in  fact grassland,  there  was no necessity of withdrawing the  show cause  notice.   Thereafter in 1976, Mamlatdar  issued  show cause  notice  as  provided under the Regulations  of  1962. Proceedings   were   initiated   by    the   Mamlatdar   for determination  whether  the  land was grass land or  it  was being  cultivated.   The order of Mamlatdar reveals that  on the   date  of  inspection,  the   entire  area  was   under cultivation  and  was having fruit bearing trees planted  by the  Agricultural  Department  and,  therefore,  proceedings initiated  on  the basis of show cause notice were  dropped. The  Mamlatdar  also ordered that respondent No.   1  should file  his  claim  for compensation  before  the  appropriate authority.   That order attained finality as the  Government did not challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

     In  view of the aforesaid final order, it is not  open to  the  State Government to deny the rights  of  respondent No.1.  Hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the High Court is in any way illegal or erroneous.

     In  the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.  Interim relief stands vacated.