Bombay High Court
Vikas Badrinath Doifode And ... vs The State Of Maha. The Secreary, ... on 21 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1416.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1416/2016
PETITIONERS: 1. Vikas Badrinath Doifode,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
2. Badrinath Saundaji Doifode,
Aged 65 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
3. Jitmal Saundaji Doifode,
ig Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
4. Vikram Kaduba Shivankar,
Aged 32 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
5. Karbhari Dhondiba Nagre,
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
6. Gajanan Ananda Misal,
Aged 38 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
7. Ashok Moruji Sarode,
Aged 45 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
8. Jagan Eknath Doifode,
Aged 46 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
9. Sau. Sangita Jagan Doifode,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
10. Pandharinath Eknath Doifode,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
11. Nanabai Eknath Doifode,
Aged 65 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
12. Santosh Baburao Doifode,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:30 :::
wp1416.16.odt
2
13. Ramdas Dagdu Nagre,
Aged 48 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
14. Gabaji Shripat Gite,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
15. Ramdas Shripat Gite
Aged 55 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
16. Baburao Namdeo Doifode,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
ig 17. Baburao Ramji Jaybhaye,
Aged 70 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
18. Santosh Baburao Jaybhaye,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
19. Sau. Lata Ramkisan Bangale,
Aged 37 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
20. Sau. Shobha Ramdas Bangale,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
21. Vithoba Malhari Bangale,
Aged 70 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
22. Mhatarba Tukaram Tathe,
Aged 70 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
23. Rangnath Tukaram Tathe,
Aged 60 years, Occu. Agriculturist.
24. Jagan Vithoba Doifode,
Aged 45 years, Occu. Agriculturist.
25. Pandharinath Karbhari Wagh,
Aged 35 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
26. Gangubai Bhavani Jaybhaye,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:30 :::
wp1416.16.odt
3
27. Namdeo Ananda Doifode,
Aged 55 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
28. Vithoba Ananda Doifode,
Aged 58 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
29. Vishwanath Ananda Doifode,
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
30. Rajendra Dinkar Doifode,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
ig 31. Ramdas Patilba Doifode,
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
32. Sukhdeo Kaduba Sanap,
Aged 45 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
33. Arjun Namdeo Doifode,
Aged 48 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
34. Ganesh Haribhau Doifode,
Aged 38 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
35. Kashinath Patilba Bangale,
Aged 52 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
36. Gabaji Piraji Dhakne,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
37. Sukhdeo Kundlik Doifode,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
38. Manohar Arjun Bangale,
Aged 32 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
39. Raybhan Pandurang Kharat,
Aged 42 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
40. Bhagwan Pandurang Kharat,
Aged 48 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:30 :::
wp1416.16.odt
4
41. Bhagwan Dhondiba Doifode,
Aged 27 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
42. Vitthal Dhondiba Doifode,
Aged 29 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
43. Kailash Bhagwan Kharat,
Aged 28 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
44. Shivhari Nandaji Nagre,
Aged 55 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
ig 45. Sudhakar Haribhau Jaybhaye,
Aged 35 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
46. Nagorao Nathaji Mhaske,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
47. Haribhau Sitaram Doifode,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
48. Bhaskar Haribhau Doifode,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
49. Ram Haribhau Doifode,
Aged 35 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
50. Sampat Manjaji Pawar,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
51. Ramesh Kundlik Mante,
Aged 45 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
52. Jyoti Ramesh Mante,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
53. Santosh Vishwanath Bangale,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
54. Eknath Namdeo Kakad,
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:30 :::
wp1416.16.odt
5
55. Vishnu Namdeo Kakad,
Aged 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
56. Devanand Bhanudas Kakad,
Aged 25 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
57. Kashinath Shripat Gite,
Aged 65 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
58. Sau. Shobha Vijay Bangale,
Aged 45 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
ig 59. Bhagwan Karbhari Mante,
Aged 60 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
60. Saraswati Suryabhan Mante,
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
61. Ramkisan Karbhari Mante,
Aged 45 years, Occup. Service.
62. Sanjay Bhagwan Mante,
Aged 35 years, Occup. Service.
63. Ananta Kisan Bangle,
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
64. Dnyaneshwar Kisan Bangle,
Aged 38 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
65. Kalinda Dnyanewar Bangale
Aged 32 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
66. Santosh Fakirba Bangle,
Aged 35 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
67. Prakash Anna Mundhe
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
68. Ashok Bhagwan Bangale,
Aged 50 years, Occup. Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:30 :::
wp1416.16.odt
6
All petitioners are r/o Singaon Jahangir,
Tah. Deulgaon Raja, District Buldana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of
Irrigation, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector, Buldana District Buldana.
ig 3. The Executive Engineer, Khadakpurna Project
Division, Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldana.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Khadakpurna Rehabilitation Sub
Division No.4, Deuolgaon Mahi,
Tq. Deulgaon Raja, District Buldana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for petitioners
Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 & 4
Shri S.S. Godbole, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 21.12.2016
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 direction against the
State Government to award the rehabilitation compensation to the
wp1416.16.odt
petitioners towards the acquisition of their lands. The petitioners seek a
further direction against the respondents to pay the interest on the
delayed payment of compensation.
The petitioners were the owners of lands in Singaon Jahagir,
Tq. Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana. The lands of the petitioners were
sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of Khadakpurna
dam. The Section 4 Notification was issued on 14.6.2007. Though the
proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, in the midst of
the proceedings, the parties agreed that a particular compensation be paid
to each of the petitioners and a consent award was passed. In pursuance
of the consent award, the sale-deeds were executed by the petitioners in
favour of the State Government. The sale-deeds were executed in the year
2009. Though the compensation was payable to the petitioners as per the
tentative market value of the land on the date of issuance of Section 4
Notification on 14.6.2007, the State Government did not release the
compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of the consent award till
March, 2012. Since the petitioners were not paid the rehabilitation
compensation and since the petitioners had suffered severe monetary loss
in view of the delayed payment of compensation, the petitioners have
approached this Court with the aforesaid prayers.
wp1416.16.odt
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
despite the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the Khadakpurna
dam, the respondents have not paid the rehabilitation compensation to
the petitioners. It is submitted that though the land was sought to be
acquired in pursuance of Section 4 Notification in June 2007 and the
petitioners were held to be entitled to compensation as per the market
value of the land on 14.6.2007, the petitioners were belatedly paid the
compensation in March, 2012. It is stated that the respondents ought not
have delayed the payment of the compensation to the petitioners. As the
petitioners were deprived of the monetary compensation to which they
were rightfully entitled, for more than three years from the date of
making of the consent award, it is stated that a direction be issued against
the respondents to pay the rehabilitation compensation and the interest
on the delayed payment.
Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 has opposed the
prayers made in the writ petition. It is stated that some plots are allotted
to the petitioners towards the acquisition of their lands. It is stated that
since plots are granted to the petitioners and they are rehabilitated, they
are not entitled to the rehabilitation compensation. It is further stated that
the petitioners had agreed, in view of the term in the sale-deeds, that they
wp1416.16.odt
would accept the compensation as and when the project is completed and
money is available with the State Government. It is lastly stated that the
petitioners were in possession of the land till the compensation was
actually paid to them in March, 2012 and hence, they are not entitled to
claim interest on the amount of compensation.
Shri Godbole, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.3
and 4 states that since the petitioners were in possession of the land till
2013, they would not be entitled to claim interest on the compensation
amount.
We find that the petitioners would not be entitled to
rehabilitation compensation as the respondents have allotted the plots to
the petitioners for their rehabilitation. When the State Government has
allotted the plots to the petitioners towards the acquisition of their lands,
the petitioners cannot seek rehabilitation compensation in addition to the
land, that is, released in their favour.
Though the first prayer made by the petitioners for grant of
rehabilitation compensation cannot be granted, it would be necessary to
direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioners on the
compensation amount. The land of the petitioners was sought to be
acquired as early as on 14.6.2007. The compensation was fixed by
consent as per the tentative market value of the land as on 14.6.2007. The
wp1416.16.odt
consent award was passed and each of the petitioners executed the
sale-deeds in favour of the respondents in the year 2009. The term in the
sale-deeds clearly recites that the possession of the land is secured by the
Government at the time of execution of the sale-deeds. It would not lie in
the mouth of the respondents, in view of the clear term in the registered
sale-deeds, that the possession of the petitioners was not lost and the
Government had not secured the possession of the land at the time of
execution of the sale-deeds and that the petitioners continued to remain
in possession of the land till March, 2012. The statement made in
paragraph 13 in the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4
that though the dam was completed in all respect in the year 2008-09, the
water could not be stored in the dam till its full capacity because the land
owners were occupying their houses till the year 2013, is ridiculous. Also,
the statement would be clearly contrary to the clear term in the sale-deeds
executed by the petitioners in favour of the State Government. Though
there was a term in the sale-deeds that the petitioners would have no
objection for receiving the compensation after the completion of the
project, the said term would not mean that the respondents should keep
the petitioners waiting for years together for the compensation. In any
case, it is clear from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent
nos.1, 3 and 4 that the project was completed in all respect in the year
wp1416.16.odt
2008-09. Hence, it is difficult to believe as to what prevented the
respondents from releasing the compensation in favour of the petitioners
till March, 2012, when each of the sale-deeds was executed, some time in
the year 2009. There is a gross delay in payment of compensation.
Though the sale-deeds speak of payment of interest to the petitioners, the
said interest would be referable to the provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not referable to the interest, i.e.,
payable under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The poor
landholders, like the petitioners, cannot be deprived of their lands as well
as the compensation for years together. There is a delay of almost three
years in paying the compensation after the execution of the sale-deeds.
We do not find any propriety in the inaction on the part of the
respondents in not releasing the compensation to the petitioners within a
reasonable time from the date of execution of the sale-deeds. In the
circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to direct the respondents
to pay interest to the petitioners @ 12% per annum from the date of
execution of the sale-deeds, till the date of actual payment of the
compensation.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to pay interest @ 12% per
annum to the petitioners on the amount of compensation from the date of
wp1416.16.odt
execution of the sale-deeds till the date on which the compensation was
actually released, within three months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
