The trial court has rightly observed that if there is no
document which show that the suit property has been
earmarked as separate land for N.A.use, then, the acquisition
record cannot be brushed aside. The award is made by the very
same revenue officer in his capacity as Special Land Acquisition
Officer. He had before him all the maps, measurements and
records and it is only then, he considered the claim of the
appellants for compensation. In these circumstances, to
displace and dislodge the statements made in the award and
which is of 18th April 1992 at this prima facie state would be
improper. The learned Judge has referred to each of the maps
and it is erroneous on the part of the appellants to urge that
they have been brushed aside. The learned Judge has referred
to them and equally to the further steps taken culminating in
the order dated 24th February 2012. It is after considering all
these materials, that he arrived at a conclusion that the
appellants – plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie
case. The Balance of convenience is also not in their favour and
they will not suffer grave or irreparable loss, harm and injury
but construction of the court building is a public project and if it
is stopped at this stage, that would be not in public interest.
The overwhelming public interest is paramount in such cases
whereas if the appellants ultimately succeed, they can be
compensated in terms of money or with appropriate direction.
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.724 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Kisham V
. Chintam
Vs
District Collector, Thane
CORAM
: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
26th March 2013.
Pronounced on :
Citation;2014(3) MHLJ629 Bom
