02 September 1996
Supreme Court
Download

CHANDRAGAUDA RAMGONDA PATIL Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: SLP(C) No.-016573-016573 / 1996
Diary number: 67783 / 1996


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI CHANDRAGAUDA RAMGONDA PATIL & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO. 19030 OF 1996 [CC - 4204/96]                          O R D E R      These Special  Leave Petitions  have been filed against the orders  passed in  W.P. No.5196/89 on March 12, 1990 and W.P. No.1552/96  on April  26, 1996.  There is absolutely no merit for  condonation  of  delay  in  the  the  first  writ petition. As regards the second writ petition, the facts are not in dispute. Way back in 1974, notification under Section 126(4) of  the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act ["MRTP Act", for short] was issued after the approval of the Scheme by  the   State  Government,  for  acquiring  the  land  for utilisation thereof for the stated Scheme. Pursuant thereto, an award  came to  be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section  11 of  the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894  (for short, the "Act") on November 11, 1977. Possession was taken earlier on  October 21,  1974. After  the utilisation of the land, surplus  land was  sought to  be used for allotment to some of  the Councilors  and the  employees of  the Kolhapur Municipality. Consequently,  the first writ petition came to be filed  which was  dismissed on  merits on March 12, 1990. Thereafter, the  petitioners filed  a suit  challenging  the acquisition and suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn being not maintainable.  Writ Petition  No.  1552/96  came  to  be filed. That  writ petition  was also dismissed on the ground that the  earlier order in the writ petition operated as res judicate. Therefore, the second writ petition was held to be not maintainable.      Shri Naik,  learned senior  counsel appearing  for  the petitioners, contended that in the second writ petition, the petitioner sought  restitution of the possession pursuant to the Resolution  of the  State Government  dated October  10, 1973 under  which Government  directed that the surplus land was to be utilised first for any other public purpose and in the alternative  it was  to be  given back  to the erstwhile owners.  Since   he  had  sought  enforcement  of  the  said Government  Resolution,  the  writ  petition  could  not  be

2

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

dismissed on  the ground  of constructive  res judicate.  He also seeks  to rely  upon certain  orders said  to have been passed by  the High  Court in conformity with enforcement of the Government  Resolution. We  do not think that this Court would be  justified in  making direction  for restitution of the land to the erstwhile owners when the land was taken way back  and   vested  in   the  Municipality   free  from  all encumbrances. We  are not concerned with the validity of the notification  in   either  of  the  writ  petitions.  It  is axiomatic that  the land acquired for a public purpose would be utilised for any another public purpose, though use of it was intended  for the  original public  purpose. It  is  not intended that  any land  which remain  unutilised, should be restituted  to   the  erstwhile   owner  to   whom  adequate compensation was  paid according  to the  market value as on the date of the notification. Under these circumstances, the High Court was well justified in refusing to grant relief in both the writ petitions.      The special leave petitions are dismissed.