Bombay High Court
Manohar S/O Shankarrao Upadhye ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 20 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1532.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1532/2015
PETITIONERS: 1. Manohar s/o Shankarrao Upadhye
aged about 52 years, Occupation : Service.
2. Sandip s/o Hariprasad Upadhye,
aged about 50 years, Occupation : Service.
Both residents of Parsodi (Vakil), Tahsil
ig Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Collector, Nagpur, Collectorate,
Civil Lines, Nagpur, Tahsil and District
Nagpur.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition
Officer, Saoner, Tahsil Saoner, District
Nagpur.
4. The Gram Panchayat, Parsodi (Vakil),
Tahsil Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur,
Through its Sarpanch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri Ganesh Iyer, Adv. h/f Shri S.S. Ghate, Adv. for respondent no.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 20.08.2016
wp1532.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the petitioners have
lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
The petitioners claim to be the owners of field Gat Nos.84
and 85 of village Parsodi. The State Government had decided to acquire
the said lands of the petitioners for the extension of Gaothan. The land
acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1997-98. After issuance
of the Section 4 and 6 notification and the completion of the procedure
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the award was passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4.2.2002. According to the
petitioners, despite the passing of the award on 4.2.2002, the respondents
have neither secured the possession of the land nor is the compensation
towards the acquisition of the land paid to the petitioners. It is stated that
the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 would be applicable to
the case in hand and it would be necessary to declare that the
wp1532.15.odt
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed, in view of
the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.
Shri Palshikar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 fairly admits by
referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.3
that the actual possession of the land remains with the petitioners and the
same is not secured by the Land Acquisition Officer after the award was
passed. It is stated that some proceedings were filed by the petitioners
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the pendency of the
proceedings, the respondent nos.1 to 3 have not secured the possession of
the land. It is, however, fairly stated that there was no interim order
against the respondent nos.1 to 3 in the proceedings filed by the
petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also fairly admitted
that after the petitioners had refused to receive the compensation, the
same was not deposited in the civil court as is required by the provisions
of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 and Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. It is admitted that in this case neither the
possession of the land is secured from the petitioners nor is the
compensation paid to the petitioners towards the acquisition of the land.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, it appears
wp1532.15.odt
that the relief sought by the petitioners needs to be granted. Admittedly,
the award was passed five years or more before the commencement of the
Act of 2013, as the same was passed in the year 2002. Since the
compensation towards the acquisition of the land is not paid to the
petitioners and since the respondents have not secured the possession of
the land from the petitioners, it would be necessary to declare, in view of
the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 that the land
acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the petitioners have
lapsed. Though the petitioners had filed the proceedings before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, there
was no stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to further proceedings and
hence, it was necessary for the State Government to secure the possession
of the land before coming into force of the Act of 2013 and also deposit
the compensation in the civil court, in terms of the provisions of
Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if the petitioners had
refused to accept the same .
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect
of the lands of the petitioners have lapsed, in view of the provisions of
Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
wp1532.15.odt
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp1532.15.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 : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 24/08/2016
