Bombay High Court
Parshuram S/O. Arjun Shrirame And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 12 August, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.4031 of 2015
1] Parshuram s/o Arjun Shrirame,
Aged about 47 years,
2] Ramdas s/o Bhivaji Barekar,
Aged about 62 years,
3] Shamrao s/o Sadu Chahande,
Aged about 70 years,
4] Sudhakar s/o Mahadeo Chahande,
Aged about 45 years.
5] Deonath s/o Baburao Nagdeote,
Aged about 57 years,
6] Bhimrao s/o Gopal Kamble,
Aged about 40 years,
7] Ganpat s/o Shrawan Shrirame,
Aged about 54 years,
8] Mukru s/o Meso Gaikwad,
Aged about 52 years,
9] Sumitra Kisan Gaikwad,
Aged about 53 years,
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2016 23:57:16 :::
2 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
10] Narayan s/o Bhadu Dhone,
Aged about 59 years,
11] Rajeshwar s/o Maroti Gaikwad,
Aged about 39 years,
12] Bakaram s/o Keshao Gaikwad,
Aged about 58 years.
13] Sakharam s/o Paika Garmale,
Aged about 65 years.
14] Sakharam s/o Shivram Gaikwad,
Aged about 64 years,
15] Ganpat s/o Bala Gaikwad,
Aged about 67 years,
16] Deonath s/o Baburao Nagdeote,
Aged about 57 years,
All residents of Jamsala (Old),
Post Jamsala (Old), Tahsil Sindewahi,
District Chandrapur. .... Petitioners.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 440 032.
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2016 23:57:16 :::
3 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
2] The Collector, Chandrapur,
C/o.-Collectorate, Chandrapur,
Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
3] The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department No.2,
Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
4] The Office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records,
Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur.
5] The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Sindewahi, District Chandrapur.
6] The Gram Panchayat Jamsala
Taluka Sindewahi, District Chandrapur,
through its Secretary,
7] The Sarpanch,
Gram Panchayat Jamsala,
Taluka Sindewahi, District Chandrapur.
8] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Thermal Power Station No.2, Chandrapur,
Tahsil and District Chandrapur. .... Respondents.
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.A. Marathe, Advocate for resp. nos.6 and 7.
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for resp. nos. 1 to 5 and 8.
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2016 23:57:16 :::
4 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari &
Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
th
Dated : 12
August, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
The petitioners agriculturists claim that though the
Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
published on 20-08-1992, the possession was never taken
and they have also not been paid compensation. The learned
Assistant Government Pleader points out that the
compensation has been collected by only one land owner,
while in case of others, it is deposited in the Government
Personal Ledger Account.
2] The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
the petitioners could have come and collected the
compensation. As they did not cooperate it was required to
5 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
be deposited with the Treasury. Our attention is invited to
the photographs placed on record to show that part of work of
construction of public road is over.
3] Learned Advocate Shri Bhandarkar appearing for the
petitioners submits that the respondent no.7/ Sarpanch has
himself moved an application to the City Survey Authority for
demarcating the land required for the road on 17-04-2015. As
the land is not demarcated, it is apparent that, the possession
is not taken.
4] Learned Advocate Shri Marathe appearing for
respondent no.7 submits that the village has been shifted at a
new site and the construction of the road is therefore
essential. As the farmers were obstructing, the Tahsildar of
Sindewahi issued communication to the Taluka Inspector of
6 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
Land Records on 29-01-2015 for demarcation. The learned
Advocate for respondent no.7 is placing strong reliance upon
the communication dated 06-05-2015 sent by the said
Tahsildar in his capacity as the Programme Officer under the
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme to the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Chandrapur. He points out that the road construction is
complete for about one kilometer and only a small portion to
connect it to an existing road to village Mohadi is yet to be
completed.
5] After hearing the respective Counsel we find that, the
total land acquired was 1.05 Hectares. The construction of
public road on part of it appears to be already over. However,
there is no document on record to show that the possession
of the entire land was taken from the petitioners. The fact
7 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
that, only one person has collected a compensation while
others have not collected, is not in dispute. The amount of
compensation payable to them has not been deposited with
the Reference Court as required by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
others, reported at (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183.
6] It was open to the respondents to claim that possession
of the land was taken after paying compensation to the land
owners and the petitioners have encroached thereafter.
However, that is not the defence raised by the respondents in
this case. The language of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short, "the said
Act"], is very clear. Here, the respondents are not in position
8 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
to prove that they took possession of the land; in addition, the
compensation amount is also not paid to any of the
petitioners.
7] It is, therefore, clear that the Award published on
20-08-1992 and the land acquisition proceedings conducted
lapse under S. 24(2) of 2013 Act.
8] Section 24(2) of the said Act, itself permits the
respondents to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings. It is
also open to the respondents to point out the urgency, if any,
in the matter.
9] Hence, with said liberty to the respondents, we make
Rule absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the petition. No
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
9 120816 judg wp 4031.15.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :
(Deshmukh) 18/08/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
