Jitesh Bhaiyalal Sahu And Another vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4423 Bom

                                                                                   
                                               1        




                                                           
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                              WRIT PETITION NO.2748 OF 2015




                                                          
    Petitioners              :    1] Jitesh Bhaiyalal Sahu,
                                     Aged 44 years, 
                                     Occupation : Agriculturist & Business.




                                            
                                  2] Rashmi Jitesh Sahu,
                               ig    Aged 39 years, 
                                     Occupation : Agriculturist and Household.
                             
                                    Both Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residing at 
                                    Pannalal Nagar, Amravati, 
                                    Taluka and District Amravati.
      

                                    -- Versus --
   



    Respondents              :   1] The State of Maharashtra, 
                                    through the Collector, Amravati.

                                  2] The Deputy Collector,





                                     Land Acquisition, Minor Irrigation Works,
                                     Amravati, Collector Office Area, Amravati.

                                 3] The Executive Engineer,
                                    Amravati Project Construction Division, 





                                    Amravati.

                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                    Shri Rahul D. Dhande, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                    Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                    Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                     C ORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

th DATE : 4 AUGUST, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per Indira Jain, J.)

Heard Shri Rahul Dhande, learned Counsel for petitioners,

Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent No.3.

02]

A piece of land admeasuring 1.95 hectares situated at Mouza

Morangana, Taluka and District Amravati originally belonged to

petitioners. Under a preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act of 1894') on 11/12/2012, the

land of petitioners along with some other lands was proposed to be

acquired for rehabilitation of village Haturna. Total land required for public

purpose was 34.93 hectares.

03] Petitioners filed objections to proposed acquisition. After

overruling the objections, State Government published a declaration

under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 02/03/2013. Respondent No.2

passed award on 26/07/2013. The said award was not immediately

communicated to petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894.

04] The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on

01/01/2014 (Act of 2013). Respondent No.2 was then informed by

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati on 28/02/2014 and 13/03/2014 that

compensation had to be determined under Section 24 read with Section

26 of the Act of 2013. State Government issued Notification on

19/03/2014 to determine compensation under the new Act. On

27/08/2014, another Notification was issued by the State clarifying that

determination of market value of the land under the Act of 2013 would

also include solatium at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value

for the period from publishing Notification of Social Impact Assessment

Study under Section 4(2) of the Act of 2013.

05] An award under the Act of 2013 was then passed on

22/01/2015 by respondent No.2 granting compensation under Section 26

of the Act of 2013 to the tune of Rs.41,31,211/- at the rate of

Rs.3,41,500/- per hectare. The said award was communicated to

petitioners on 21/02/2015. Thereafter, reference under Section 64 of the

Act of 2013 came to be preferred for enhancement of compensation.

06] Being aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated

by respondent No.2 under the Act of 1894 and award passed under the

new Act, petitioners preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :

"(b) to issue an appropriate writ, direction in the nature of a

Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order, direction to the Respondents to quash and set aside the proceedings

initiated under the Land Acquisition Case No.2/47/2012-13 including the Notifications issued under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Award passed u/s 24(2) passed by the Deputy Collector, Amravati (Respondent

No.2) dated 22.1.2015 (Annexure "A") under The Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that the said proceedings are discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and

bad in law."

07] The challenge by petitioners is mainly on two grounds viz.

(i) under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894, Collector was duty bound to

immediately communicate the award. Non communication of award

immediately to petitioners would mean that award was not made and

(ii) non compliance of issuance of notice under Section 9 of the Act of

1894. It is the contention of petitioners that where a Notification under

Section 4 of the Act of 1894 had been published before 31/12/2013 and

no award was made before 31/12/2013, then as per Rule 19 of the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014, proceedings

shall be continued in accordance with the provisions of Sections 26 to 30

of the Act of 2013. In support thereof, reliance is placed on -

(1) Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition

Officer - 1961 AIR (SC) 1500.

(2) State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jehan Beigum - 1963 AIR (SC) 1604.

(3) Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, through

Deputy Collector Modasa - 2005 AIR (SC) 3464 .

(4) Velaxan Kumar vs. Union of India and others - 2015 AIR (SC) 1462.

08] The second contention is that no notice under Section 9 of

the Act of 1894 was ever issued and thereby an opportunity was denied to

petitioners to raise objections regarding value and measurement of the

land. To substantiate their contentions, petitioners rely upon Steel

Authority of India Ltd v. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam and others - 2009(16) SCC 1.

09] In response to the submissions made on behalf of petitioners,

learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on reply-affidavit

dated 04/08/2015 and additional affidavit filed on 27/07/2016. He submits

that issuance of Notifications is a matter of policy decision of the

Government. He submitted that an enquiry was conducted as per the

provisions of Section 5A and 9(1)(2) of the Act of 1894, objections were

heard and then award was passed on 26/07/2013. It is submitted that

after the Act of 2013 came into effect, directions were issued to determine

compensation as per the new Act. It is contended that modified award

under Section 24(2) of the Act passed on 22/01/2015 is based on sale

transactions in the vicinity of area as well as the market value and also by

using ready reckoner. Initially in the affidavit submitted on 04/08/2015

respondent Nos.1 and 2 stated that symbolic possession of land was

taken on 18/03/2015. In later affidavit, respondents submitted that

petitioners handed over possession on 18/03/2015, but in previous

affidavit, it was wrongly and mistakenly mentioned that symbolic

possession was taken.

10] Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 adopts the arguments

of learned Assistant Government Pleader. In addition, he submits that the

project for which land has been acquired is a Major Irrigation Project and

environment impact assessment study was carried out. It was submitted

to the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Vide letter dated 22/02/2008,

environmental clearance was granted for the said project. Learned

Counsel placed vehement reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kaliyappan vs. State of Kerala and others - AIR

1989 SC 239 and submitted that date of signing the award is the date on

which award is said to have been made. It is contended that non

communication of award under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 does not

vitiate the award as a whole. Reference is made to the decision of this

Court in -

(i) Smt. Sakharbai Haribhau Shelke Since (D) through her L.Rs. vs. The Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur & Ors. - 2014(5) ALL MR 727.

(ii) Decision in Writ Petition No.2390 of 2015, dated

21/09/2015 by Bench at Aurangabad.

(iii) Decision of Delhi High Court in Roshanara Begum vs.

Union of India and others - AIR 1996 Delhi 206 (FB).

In reply to non service of notice under Section 9 of the Act of

1894,learned Counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance on -

(i) Nasik Municipal Corporation vs. Harbanslal Laikwant Rajpal and others -(1997) 4 SCC 199.

(ii) May George vs. Special Tahsildar and others - (2010) 13 SCC 98.

11] Before we proceed to discuss the arguments of learned

Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to set out the provisions of

Sections 11, 11-A, 12(2), 18 of the Act of 1894 and 24 of 2013 Act.

Section 11. Enquiry and award by Collector -

11. Enquiry and award by Collector - (1) On the day so

fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated

pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land and at the date of the publication of the notification

under Section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of -

(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not

they have respectively appeared before him:

Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector

under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate

Government may authorize in this behalf:

Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of

cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this

behalf.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),

if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be

included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.

(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in anyway affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or

elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration

Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub- section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.

Section 11-A. Period within which an award shall be

made -

11-A. Period within which an award shall be made -

(1) The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of

the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the

entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has

been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall he made within a period of two years from such commencement.

Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

Section 12. Award of Collector when to be final - (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by

their representatives when the award is made.

Section 18. Reference to Court -

18. Reference to Court - (1) Any person interested who has

not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector

for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the

compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons

interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which

objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made -

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2); or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.

Section 24 of the Act of 2013 :

24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894

shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any

case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), -

(a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land

Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the

provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said

Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then,

all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be

entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

12] The moot question in the present case is whether absence of

immediate communication of award under Section 12(2) of the Act of

1894 would vitiate the award. It cannot be doubted that a complete

machinery has been provided for settlement of the dispute about the

rights of owners and quantum of compensation by resorting to procedure

prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act. On consideration of Scheme of

the Act, it can be seen that in the matters concerning compulsory

acquisition of the property after completing the preliminary survey, said

Authorities are expected to publish a preliminary Notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) is an

expression of intention of the State to acquire the property. The next

stage is provided in Section 5A whereby a person interested in the land

can raise objections in respect of proposed acquisition which are required

to be considered by the Collector. On consideration of such objections, a

declaration of intended acquisition is prescribed under Section 6 of the

Act. This declaration is required to be made by the State Government

and as per Sub-Section 2 of Section 6, publication is contemplated of

such declaration. Section 7 provides that after publication of declaration

under section 6, Collector to take order for the acquisition of land. In view

of provisions of Section 8, Collector then proceeds to cause the land to

be measured and if no plan has been made thereof, a plan is to be made

on the same. The next stage prescribed under Section 9 casts a duty on

Collector to issue notice to the persons interested in the land stating that

Government intends to take possession of the land and claims to

compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. Section

11 lays down the procedure in respect of an enquiry and award to be

passed by the Collector. All these stages enumerated in Sections 4 to 11

of the Act are required to be followed chronologically and would clearly

indicate that it is a self contained Act for settlement of dispute about the

rights of land holders and claims of compensation.

13] In the present case, our concern is in respect of Section 12(2)

of the Act of 1894. Notice under Section 12(2) is a notice ex post facto of

an award already made. It is not a kind of notice which goes to the root of

the matter in the sense that failure to give notice would vitiate the award

itself. The words "immediate notice" are used solely in the interest of

public to ensure that acquisition shall be facilitated and completed without

delay. This sub-rule imposes statutory duty upon the Collector and does

not vest a right in the person interested so as to entitle him to say that a

late notice is bad.

14] In the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra), the

appellant filed his claim to compensation for the land acquired in

accordance with Section 9(2) and proceedings were held by the Deputy

Land Acquisition Officer for determining the amount of compensation. In

these proceedings, an award was made, singed and filed in his office on

25/03/1951. No notice of this award was, however, given to the appellant

as required by Section 12(2) and it was only on or about 13/01/1953 that

he received information about making of the said award. The appellant

then filed an application on 24/02/1953 under Section 18 requiring that

matter be referred for the determination of the Court, as, according to the

appellant, the compensation determined in the proceedings was quite

inadequate. In these proceedings and also in the appeal before the High

Court, it was held that the application filed by the appellant under Section

18 of the Act was barred by limitation. In view of this fact, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that the expression "the date of award" used in the

proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to

the party or is known by him either actually or constructively.

15] In the case of Kaliyappan vs. State of Kerala and others

(supra), the decision in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh was

distinguished and in paragraph 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus :

"If the date of the communication of the notice of the

award to the person interested in the land is treated as the date of making the award then the maximum period

prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act for making the award would get reduced by the period required for serving the notice of the award on the owner of the land. Such

maximum period may vary from one case to another.

If the person interested in the land is an unwilling person who is interested in defeating the land acquisition proceeding it is likely that it may not be possible to serve him with the notice of the award at all within the prescribed time and if he can avoid the service of said notice until the period of two years is over from the date of the publication of the

declaration under Section 6 of the Act or the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, as the case may be insofar as his interest in the land is

concerned, the proceedings for the acquisition would lapse thus affecting seriously the public interest. It would also lead to absurd and inconvenient results since the acquisition

proceeding may be valid against some persons and may

become invalid in the case of some others."

16] In paragraph 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed

that there is no doubt a difference between the meaning given by the

Court in Raja Harish Chandra's case (supra) to the words "date of the

award" in Section 18 of the Act and words 'the Collector shall make an

award' or 'the award shall be made' in Section 11-A of the Act, but such a

distinction had to be maintained because the object of and the reason for

prescribing the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Act and the

consequences that would flow from the violation of the rule of limitation in

two cases are also different. In the former case, the period of limitation is

prescribed for preventing official delay in making the award and the

consequent adverse effect on the person or persons interested in the land

but in the latter case, the period of limitation is prescribed for providing a

remedy to the persons whose lands are required to seek a reference to

the civil court for the determination of proper and just compensation.

Secondly, while in the former case violation of the rule of limitation would

result in the acquisition proceeding becoming ineffective, in the latter case

such a violation will not have any effect on the validity of acquisition

proceeding. Thirdly, while in the former case the period of limitation

prescribed represents the outer limit within which an award can be made,

in the latter case, the point of time at which the time to make an

application under Section 18 of the Act will begin to run against the person

interested in the land. The provisions of Section 11-A have to be

construed bearing in mind these points of difference.

17] In the light of the above, it is clear that provisions of S.18 of

old Act employ the words "date of the Collector's award". Otherwise, S.11

thereof which enjoins the obligation on Collector to make an award & use

the words "shall make an award" does not refer to the date of such award.

On the contrary the word "date" appears in S.11 when it refers to S.4

notification. It also appears in S.11-A, where it indicates date of

declaration under S.6 of old Act as starting point of period of two years

within which the award must be made by the Collector under S.11.

S.11-A nullifies the award if it is not made within said two years. Thus in

both these Sections said word is used once each but not with reference to

the date of award. Insistence therein is on "making" of award. For

computation of period of two years in S.11-A, two points of time between

which the said period needs to be computed are required. It, still, does not

indicate date of award but points out the event of making of award. As

already seen, what constitutes making of an award is already explained

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliyappan v. State of Kerala, Hon'ble Court

points out that "to make an award" in this section means "sign the award".

That is the ordinary meaning to be ascribed to the words "to make an

award". Extended or a different meaning assigned to the words "the date

of the award" by it in Raja Harish Chandra case (supra) has not be

applied in this case holding that such an extended or different meaning is

neither warranted by equity nor will it advance the object of the statute.

Under the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act, the Collector is empowered

to make an award within two years from the date of commencement of the

Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 irrespective of the date on which

the notice of award is served on the person concerned. Apex Court did

not find any analogy between Section 11-A and Section 18 of the Act

insofar as the event of making of an award is concerned. S.18 enables

aggrieved landowner to file reference for enhancement of the

compensation. This remedy opens only after the award is made by the

Collector. It is in S.18(2) prescribing limitation for availing remedy of the

reference, to show the starting time for its computation, words "from the

date of the Collector's award" have been used. Thus, here the date of

making award becomes significant to determine the limitation. Clause(a) &

(b) of S.18(2) also envisage knowledge of making of award to such

landowner.

18] In Raja Harischandra & Larger Bench of Apex Court in State

of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum (supra) holds that knowledge of the

award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has

been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the

award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If

the award is communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the

party can be fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he

reads it or not. Apex Court also holds that when a party is present in court

either personally or through his representative when the award is made by

the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the

award. Thus, this discussion is for deciding the issue of limitation and

does not mean that award is not deemed to be made till it is

communicated to the landowner. These judgments hold that mere expiry

of six months from the date on which the Collector made award, does not

result in expiry of period of limitation, if the landowner had no knowledge

of the essential contents of the award. This exposition of law does not

impinge on award made by the Collector, at all. Efforts of Advocate

Dhande to demonstrate inconsistency in these two judgments on one

hand and Kaliyappan v. State of Kerala (supra) on the other hand, is

misconceived. When it comes to lapsing of land acquisition proceeding

itself, making of award by the Collector is seen as signing of award by him

and not its communication to the landowner. Thus the date of sign on

which Collector puts his sign on the award is relevant for finding out

whether award is made within stipulated time limit of two years. But for

computing period of limitation under later part of clause (b) of S.18(2),

date on which he acquires knowledge of the essential contents of the

award, is decisive.

19] The act of Collector of signing of award as tantamounting to

making of award as also the concept of award being made or making of

award which is well understood, is also employed by the Parliament in

S.24 of 2013 Act. This concept or event needs to be interpreted similarly

as in 1894 Act. There is no reason to construe it differently. On the

contrary, reason for change in perspective while approaching two different

situations i.e., of lapsing of the acquisition itself and of preserving the

remedy of reference; also holds good here. Here, we gave petitioners

opportunity to inspect the original records relating to making of award &

the fact that Collector signed the award on date disclosed on award is not

in dispute before us. Thus the award is legal & made within 5 years before

coming into force of 2013 Act. Hence, recourse to proviso to S.24(2) in the

present facts can not be faulted with.

20] It is apparent that S.24 affects the land acquisition

proceedings under 1894 Act differently depending upon the stage thereof.

Under S.24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, where no award under Section 11 of the

1894 Act has been made as on 01.01.2014, all provisions of 2013 Act

relating to the determination of compensation apply. As per clause (b) if

an award under said Section 11 is already made, then acquisition

proceedings continue as per 1894 Act as if said Act has not been

repealed. Thus under S.24(1), the 2013 Act in its entirety is not made

applicable to the land acquisition proceedings already initiated under 1894

Act & pending on 01/01/2014. Then comes the provisions which confer

some benefit on the landowners contingent upon the age of such old

pending acquisition proceedings. S.24(2) operates if two requirements

thereof are satisfied. If such an award under Section 11 of 1894 Act is

made (1) five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act but

(2) the physical possession of the land is not taken or the compensation is

not paid, the acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act lapse.

21] In present case, we are concerned with the later proviso

which confers limited benefit. It stipulates that where an award is made

within said five years and compensation in respect of a majority of land

holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then

all beneficiaries i.e., landowners specified in the notification for acquisition

under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, become entitled to compensation in

accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. It provides right "to

compensation in accordance with the provisions" of 2013 Act. It does not

make 2013 Act applicable to the petitioners. Therefore while saving all

steps taken under 1894 Act, 2013 Act enables only change in formula to

compute the compensation.

22] Merely because the award under 1894 Act is not made or not

made within five years prior to 01/01/2014, the proceedings do not lapse

and there is no requirement of fresh initiation of the acquisition

proceedings under 2013 Act. Lapsing and fresh initiation is contemplated

only in contingency found in S.24(2) and in no other case. Hence, even

due to this reason, the Petitioners can not succeed in their attempt to

reach new Act fully by urging that as the award was never communicated

to them, the land acquisition proceeding under 1894 Act lapse. Making of

award and its communication to the landowner are two distinct &

independent things. The scheme of Section 24 does not envisage a

preliminary notification under S.11 of the 2013 Act in cases falling under

S.24(1)(a) or proviso to S.24(2) but fastens obligation to pay as per

Sections 26 to 30 with reference to date of S.4 notification under 1894

Act. Petitioners whose case is not covered under S.24(2), can not claim

that compensation needs to be determined with reference to date of

notification under S.11 of 2013 Act or 01.01.2014, when 2013 Act comes

into force. They can not also seek advantage of any other provision of

2013 Act not contained in 1894 Act or alleged absence of Social Impact

Study as that is beyond the scheme of S.24. In any case, scheme for

determination of compensation in Ss. 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act will have to

be applied in harmony with scheme of S. 24. All provisions of 2013 Act

can not be extended to the petitioners. Moreover, as environmental

impact study has been performed here, as per mandate of S. 8 of

2013 Act, insistence on social impact study is unwarranted. Petitioners

who have already received the compensation under 2013 Act in

accordance with proviso to S.24(2) and filed further proceedings for its

enhancement, can not now turn around & assail the very initiation of

acquisition proceedings.

23] Regarding denial of an opportunity under Section 9 of the Act,

petitioners could not show that any prejudice has been caused to them.

So far as other contentions in respect of inadequate compensation,

possession etc. are concerned, reference under Section 64 of the Act of

2013 is already preferred and it would be within the domain of the

Reference Court to deal with the same, in accordance with the law.

24] In the above, premise, we do not find any merit and

substance in the petition. Hence, Writ Petition No.2748/2015 stands

dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

                             JUDGE                                       JUDGE
    *sdw




                                                                                      





                                                             
                                         C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and

correct copy of the original signed judgment.

Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 09/08/2016 P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.