Bombay High Court
Dayaram Bhondu Koche And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 December, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp3447.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3447 OF 2015
1. Dayaram Bhondu Koche,
Aged Adult.
2. Ruplata Tukaram Koche,
Aged Adult.
3. Dhiraj Madhukar Koche,
Aged adult.
4. Sumedh Tulsidas Koche.
5. Smt. Sheela Tulshidas Koche,
Aged adult.
6. Bhimrao Dakram Koche,
Aged adult.
7. Mohan s/o. Shivshankar Nandanwar,
Aged about 55 years.
8. Bandu s/o. Shivshankar Nandanwar,
Aged about 50 years.
9. Virendra Laxmanrao Gabhane,
Aged adult.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::
2 wp3447.15.odt
10.Raghunath s/o. Tukaram Bhiwagade,
Aged 62 years.
11.Smt.Shanta wd/o. Anandrao Bhiwagade,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. Household
work.
12.Ghanshyam Baburao Bhure,
Aged adult.
13.Saraswatabai wd/o. Baburao Bhure,
Aged adult.
14.Ganesh Shivshankar Bhure,
Aged adult.
15.Ramesh Gangaram Koche,
Aged adult.
16.Jaitura Sitaram Koche,
Aged adult.
17.Babita wd/o. Arun Koche,
Aged adult.
18.Asok Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
19.Shankar Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
20.Ishwar Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
21.Sadashiv Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
22.Prabhu Mahadeo Lute,
Aged adult.
23.Vivek Budhaji Gajbhiye,
Aged adult.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::
3 wp3447.15.odt
24.Lekhram Bakaram Motghare,
Aged adult.
25.Ramlal Vithoba Mate,
Aged adult.
26.Malchand Hiraman Babre,
Aged adult.
27.Namdeo Chokoba Thaokar,
Aged adult.
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, 12 to 14,
15 to 17 are Agriculturists, r/o.
Mangalpande Ward, Bhandara.
Petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 22
to 25 are Agriculturists and 27 are
r/o. Village Bela, Post Bela, Tq. And
Distt. Bhandara.
Petitioner no.9 is agriculturist and
r/o. Rajgopalachari Ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra.
Petitioner Nos. 18 to 21 are
agriculturists and r/o. Pindkepar,
Post Bela, Tq. and Distt. Bhandara,
Maharashtra. .......... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary.
Revenue Department
(Rehabilitation), Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::
4 wp3447.15.odt
2. The District Collector,
Bhandara, Tq. and Distt.
Bhandara.
3. The District Rehabilitation Officer,
Collector Office, Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer
and Sub-Divisional Officer,
Bhandara.
5. Executive Engineer,
Gosekhurd Rehabilitation Division,
Ambadi, Tq. and Distt.
Bhandara. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.K.B.Zingarde, Advocate with Mr.PKS Mishra,
Advocate and Mr.U.P.Deopujari, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr.S.M.Ukey, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr.S.G.Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
_____________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 21.12.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.R.Gavai, J) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent.
5 wp3447.15.odt
2. The present petition has been filed by the
petitioners praying for quashing and setting aside the
Award dt.17.11.2010, under which the compensation as
payable to the petitioners came to be determined in
accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as "the LAC Act").
3. The land of the petitioners are acquired for Gosikhurd
project. Notification under Section 4 of the LAC Act was
declared on 16.2.2008. The Awards u/s. 11 of the LAC Act
came to be issued on 17.11.2010. The petitioners have not
disputed the factum regarding acquisition of their lands.
The only contention raised in the petition is that, in view of
the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 2013 Act"), the petitioners are entitled
for determination of compensation as per the provisions of
the 2013 Act.
6 wp3447.15.odt
4. The Division Bench of this Court (comprising of
B.P.Dharmadhikari, J and V.M.Deshpande, J) vide Judgment
and Order dt.2.3.2016 had diferred with the view taken
earlier by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Shrikant Shankarrao Daulatkar and Others vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.1923 of 2014, decided on
22.6.2015 and as such, referred the matter to the Larger
Bench for determination of the issue as to whether the
petitioner's land would be entitled to compensation as per
the 2013 Act or not.
5. Since the learned Judges had not framed the issue
to be determined by the Division Bench in the referral
order, the Larger Bench had framed the following issue :
"Whether proviso to Section 24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 is also applicable to the awards
which are covered under Clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act ?"
7 wp3447.15.odt
6. The Larger Bench vide order dt.5.12.2016 had
held that the proviso to Section 24 of the 2013 Act is also
applicable to the Awards which are covered under clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. It
was held by the Larger Bench that all such beneficiaries
whose names are specified in the notification u/s.4 of the
LAC Act and in case of which, the Awards have been
passed within a period of five years prior to the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act and wherein the
compensation as construed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
another vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and
Others reported in 2014 (3) SCC 183 is not paid to the
majority of beneficiaries would also be entitled to the
compensation as per the 2013 Act.
7. After reference is answered by the Larger Bench,
the present matter is listed before us for deciding it in
accordance with the answer given by the Full Bench.
Undisputedly, the Award in the case of the petitioners
herein is passed within a period of five year from the
8 wp3447.15.odt
date on which the 2013 Act commenced. It is also not in
dispute that, out of 35 beneficiaries, the compensation is
paid only to five beneficiaries. It could thus be seen that
the compensation is not paid to 30 beneficiaries, which is
undisputedly a majority figure in the figure of 35. As
such, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed.
The petitioners would be entitled to compensation as per
the 2013 Act.
The impugned Award dt.17.11.2010 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
8. The matter is remitted back to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bhandara for re-determining the
compensation payable to all the beneficiaries finding
names in Section 4 notification in accordance with the
provisions of 2013 Act. It shall be done within a period
of three months from today.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with
no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Jaiswal
