Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The claimants' case is that they are the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 285 situated in the village of Jaskhar. The said premises were purchased by the ancestors of the claimant as far back as in 1791 from Sheriff of the Town and Island of Bombay. By the registered Sale Deed dated 18th August, 1873, the said premises along with the number of other lands together with the salt works thereon were purchased by the ancestors of the claimants. Thereafter, the same were inherited by successive generations of the claimant's family either by partition or heirship or gift. In a suit filed by Mohamed Majid Khatkhatay against the claimant and Ors. being Suit No. 1025 of 1938, the said premises were allotted to the share of the claimant, and the claimant is shown as Shilotri in the Jamin Kharda thereby describing the said land as the private land. The said Jamin Kharda is equivalent to the record of rights maintained by the Salt Department as the said land was being used for manufacture of salt. The land for Panvel-Uran-Diva Railway line was acquired in the year 1965 or thereabouts and one and half times more than the value of the agricultural land was paid to the owners of the said salt works lands as the compensation. Non-renewal of licence or refusal to renew the same is not justifiable act and cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the claimant for compensation. The extensive developments done by the claimants during all these years would be a total loss in the event of acquisition and it will not be possible for the applicant to salvage any development activities carried out for conducting the salt busienss in the land in question. The claimants had business of salt pans since their fore-fathers for over 3 to 4 generations. The claimants claim Rs.50,000/-per acre for the value of the land and user thereof. They also claim damages for loss of business. The claimants claim a further sum of Rs.25,000/-per acre for restoration and rehabilitation expenses to be incurred by them. The claimants further claim 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The claimants further claim an amount of Rs.22,49,795/- for the acquired lands, and solatium and interest amount thereon to be calculated.

12. The witness on behalf of the claimant, Ardeshire Hormasji Bhiwandiwalla, AW-1, stated in his testimony that he had filed 5 to 6 land reference cases in relation to his land used for salt manufacturing. He had been in the salt business since 1940 which was started by his father in the year 1870. He had been looking after the business after the death of his brother which occurred in 1940. He was responsible for starting Uran Sheva Karanja Salt Shilotris Syndicate which was to lookafter the manufacture of salt and deal with the Government. He had been the President of the said Syndicate for about 15 years. Since the times of Peshwas or Portuguese, the Salt Manufacturers were called as the "Shilotris". They were agriculturists and salt manufacturers. Most of the salt works at Uran were owned by Shilotris together with the land except one or two which were leased out by the Government. He had taken on lease the three salt works. Neither the Portuguese nor the British had ever disputed the rights of Shilotris over the salt works as the owners of the land. The land revenue was collected by the British from Shilotris as the government revenue. Thereafter, it was handed over to the Salt Department for administrative purposes and they collected revenue in the form of moundage which was equal to 3 to 4 pies per mound of salt. About 15 salt works belonged to him and they were acquired by his family either by way of private purchase, or Court auction, or sale by liquidator or by the Government. Neither himself nor his father had relinquished their land in favour of the Government at any time and the Government all throughout understood them as Shilotris as the owners of the salt works and the land underneath it. The order passed by the Collector of Kolaba dated 2nd March, 1928 shows that the land belonged to Shilotris as the owners thereof. It pertains to "Gawakhalcha Salt Work". After the salt work was suppressed, the land being used by them for agricultural purposes. As there was 7/12 extract for other land, there was a document "Jamin Kharda" for the salt lands. The land was acquired for construction of road by the Salt Department as well as by the Indian Air Force on payment of compensation and nobody had disputed their proprietary rights in the salt land acquired for the said purpose. He had been cultivating agricultural land at Uran, in respect of which he had to pay assessment. Some salt works were started prior to 1870 and some construction was done after getting the licence for manufacture of salt. The Government also had made some construction on the Government salt works. He had no evidence to show that Rs.5,00,000/-were received by him by way of compensation for acquisition of the said land. He had purchased 5 salt works by private purchase for which he had produced the sale deeds. Every transaction in respect of the salt works required permission from the Collector of Salt Department and he had received those permissions, however, the same were not filed on record. He has denied the suggestion that he could not produce such permission because it was never given to him by the Government. He has further admitted that all the lands in 79 land reference cases are Khajan or Marshy lands but he was not aware as to whether those lands were accordingly shown in the revenue records. He had transferred his salt land to the Salt Department for the purpose of administration for getting the licence for manufacture of salt. He had applied to the Salt Department for getting the licence for manufacture of salt, and if the private person wanted to start salt pan in his land, he had to relinquish occupancy right in favour of the Government before applying for licence.

15. Exhibit-50, which is a copy of the testimony of Kaikoba Dosabhai Dongriwala in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 113 of 1986, reveals that he is a Solicitor though is not a practicing Advocate. He is Shilotrew and salt manufacturer and active member of Bombay Salt Merchants and Shilotrews Association and Rai Murdha Chote Shilotrew Sangh. In 1957, his father had filed an application to the Salt Department along with the two other partners to construct salt work in the Village Diwa in Thane District and after receipt of the permission from the Collector, 295 acres of land in the Village Diwa was transferred in the revenue records by a mutation entry to the name of the Central Government. The Mutation Entry No. 614 of village Diwa is the same one. After the construction of Salt Works necessary licence for manufacture of salt was issued, and in Kabjedar column the Salt Department was shown while excluding their names from the 7/12 extracts. After cancellation of the licence in July, 1962, the Salt Department resisted the reversion of land to them. However, after correspondence in 1966, the Salt Commissioner, Jaipur, issued direction to the Collector of Thana to transfer 295 acres of the land in their names and thereafter regular mutation entry was carried out in respect of the said land. Till date, they were in possession of the land and were paying the land revenue assessment. He has admitted that for the purpose of grant of licence for salt manufacturing, the land has to be converted and made suitable for salt work purposes and for that purpose, the land has to be transferred in the name of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of law. However, their ownership right in respect of the land was re-transferred to them. He has further stated that until 1884 in Uran, Shilotries were defined as natives and proprietors of the soil with unrestricted rights of tilling the same and the said rights were inheritance and without any restriction over the rights of alienation. While enumerating the distinguishing features between the private salt work and the government salt work, he has stated that the ownership of the private salt work can be devolved upon the heirs as well as to the assignees while the government salt work, the lessee has no such right. According to him, all Shilotris salt works were classified as the private salt works and Jamin Kharda was a register maintained by the Salt Department. One of the columns in the Jamin Kharda describes tenure and ownership of land on which the salt work is situated. According to the witness, Jamin Kharda specifically states the details of such land and the salt work including the year of opening of the salt work, year of first survey, names of the Shilotris and other owners of the salt works, the total area utilised for the salt works including the area under the pans, khajina, tapavanis and platforms. The Jamin Kharda also mentions licence number and duration of the licence. It also contains a column in respect of any encroachment made in the salt works. He has referred to the two judgments of the Bombay High Court. One in Dadabhai Jahangarji v. Rambhau Bhimbhau reported in 11 Bombay High Court Reporter sometime in 1864 and the other one in Manubhai Amrutlal Sheth v. The Government of Maharashtra delivered by the Bombay High Court in 1967, referred to as the Chandivali case, however, no copies of the judgment were produced, nor the exact citations are disclosed. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he was giving the evidence in all the reference matters as the expert witness and his expertise is in the two fields, one as salt manufacture and Anr. as the legal expert. He had not brought to the Court the document to show that he is owner of the salt works. According to him, the word "Shilotri" was defined in the Regulation No. 1808 and it was not defined in any other enactment. He had no copy of the order of the Salt Department, Jaipur, issuing directions to the Collector, Thane, to retransfer the land to them. He did not have any certified copy thereof. He did not have in his possession any order of regrant of the land to them. He was not in a position to produce any document regarding the salt manufacture in the five salt works that he had claimed to have acquired.

16. Exhibit-44 which is a copy of the testimony of Nathuram Govind Deshmukh in Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986 placed on record in this matter discloses to have stated by the said witness that the salt worker owners i.e. Shilotris were manufacturing the salt for a period of 10 years on execution of the agreement between the society of which he was Secretary and was supposed to supervise the salt work. He has not deposed anything regarding the ownership right pertaining to the land. However, in the cross-examination, he has stated that all the salt works that the society had been manufacturing were taken on lease by the society from the respective owners of the salt pans and they had obtained permission from the Salt Department for such lease, and without such permission, the manufacture of salt would have been illegal.