Sandanand Garage Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors  INSC 587 (7 April 2008)
ALTAMAS KABIR & J.M. PANCHAL
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2641 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 915/2007)
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties we are inclined to
dispose of the appeal itself.
As will appear from the materials on record, the appellant was running a
garage on the property which forms the subject matter of the appeal, and was
sought to be acquired at the instance of the respondent No.2 which is a
statutory trust. After award had been passed under Sec.11, possession was alleged to have
been taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.2.2004 under Section 16
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. From the letter written by the Special Land
Acquisition Collector to the -2- solicitor of the appellant, possession was
made over by the Collector to the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent
No.2 immediately after possession was taken under Sec.16 of the aforesaid Act.
It is the appellants' case that physical possession had not been taken by
the Collector and subsequently he was dispossessed by the respondent No.2 and
that in the process various articles said to have been kept in the premises had
The appellant in the meantime filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court
in its Original Side challenging the Notification under Sec.6 of the Land
Acquisition Act and in the said writ petition Notice of Motion was taken out
praying for certain interim reliefs which were, however, refused. Subsequently,
another Notice of Motion also for interim reliefs, including a prayer for
expeditious hearing of the writ petition, was dismissed. It is against the
order of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 21.3.2005 that the present
appeal has been filed wherein the interim prayers made before the High Court
have been sought to be reiterated. Such prayers also include the restoration of
the materials alleged to have been removed form the premises after physical
possession was taken over by the respondent No.2.
-3- At this juncture it may be indicated that the appellant has also filed a
Reference petition under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is
pending before the Special Land Acquisition Judge and is yet to be disposed of.
The owner of the property has also filed a reference and both are pending.
From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in this Court
the claim of the appellant in the reference has been set out and it includes
the claim for the damage sustained on account of removal of the goods which
were said to have been kept in the premises in question.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties,
we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court except
to the extent that the High Court, if possible, should try and dispose of the
writ petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of communication of this order.
-4- We also make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the
claims made on behalf of the appellant and the appellant would be entitled to
proceed with the same before the Reference Court or before any other Forum as
may be available to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
There will be no order as to costs.