Kailash Gangadhar Jogewar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1455 Bom

                                                1                         WP-1361.16




                                                                            
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                    
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                            WRIT PETITION NO. 1361 OF 2016




                                                   
     1.       Kailash Gangadhar Jogewar,
              Age: 26 years, Occ.: agri.,
              r/o Ghungrala, Tq. Naigaon (Kh)
              Dist. Nanded.




                                         
     2.       Mohan Gangadhar Jogewar,
              Age: 30 years, Occ.: agri.,
                             
              r/o Ghungrala, Tq. Naigaon (Kh)
              Dist. Nanded.
                            
     3.       Raosaheb Sheshrao More,
              Age: 50 years, Occu.: Agri.,
              r/o : Gangabeed, Tq. Naigaon
              Dist. Nanded.                                  ...PETITIONERS
      


              versus
   



     1.       The State of Maharashtra
              Through its Secretary,
              Public works department,





              Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai -32

     2.       The District Collector,
              Nanded, Dist. Nanded.

     3.       The Deputy Collector





              Land Acquisition, Nanded,
              Dist Nanded.

     4.       The Executive Engineer,
              Public Works Department,
              Nanded, Tal. & Dist. Nanded                    ...RESPONDENTS


                                     .....
     Mr. Amit. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for petitioner
     Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4.
                                     .....




    ::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:02:26 :::
                                                 2                          WP-1361.16


                                   CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND




                                                                             
                                           K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATED : 12th APRIL, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel

for parties finally, with consent.

2. Mr. Mukhedkar, learned counsel for petitioners states as that the

award has been passed on 17-01-2014 i.e. after enforcement of Right

to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act of 2013").

Though the award has been passed after enforcement of Act of 2013,

however, compensation is computed as per the provisions of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short "Act of 1894"). Learned counsel for

petitioners further submits that as per section 24(1)(a) of the Act of

2013, compensation has to be computed as per the Act of 2013.

2. Mr. Dande, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing

for respondents -authorities submits that all the proceedings of

acquisition were under the Act of 1894 only award came to be passed

after introduction of the Act of 2013. Learned Assistant Government

Pleader submits that compensation amount has been rightly computed.

3. We have gone through award. Award is passed on 17-01-2014.

The Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 01-01-2014. Section

24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 succinctly lays down that award under

section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of

3 WP-1361.16

this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply.

4. Perusal of award, it is manifest that all benefits are computed as

per section 23 of the Act of 1894, the same would be erroneous in view

of provisions of section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013.

5. In the light of above, award to the extent of computing

compensation amount is quashed and set aside. Respondents-

authorities shall compute the compensation afresh in accordance with

Act of 2013, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of

six (06) months from the date of order. After computing compensation

amount, the same shall be paid to the claimants expeditiously. The

amount already paid under award impugned shall be adjusted while

computing the compensation amount under the Act of 2013.

6. In view of above, writ petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

Rule is made partly absolute. No cost.

                      Sd/-                              Sd/-

           [ K. K. SONAWANE, J.]                  [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]





     MTK