Putalbai Bhimrao Mule And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3649 Bom

                                              1                           WP-7066.15




                                                                            
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                    
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 7066 OF 2015




                                                   
     1.       Putalbai W/o Bhimrao Mule
              Aged about 77 years, Occupation
              Household and Agriculturer, R/o
              Daithana, Taluka Kaij, District
              Beed.




                                       
     2.       Narhari S/o Bhimrao Mule,
              Died through Legal Representative
                             
     2A.      Wachistha S/o Narhari Bhimrao Mule,
              Aged about 32 years, Occupation
                            
              Household and Agricuturer,
              R/o Daithana, Taluka Kaij,
              District Beed.

     3.       Jivan S/o Bhimrao Mule,
      

              Aged about 57 years, Occupation
              Agriculture, R/o Daithana, Taluka
              Kaij, District Beed.
   



     4.       Parmeshwar S/o Bhimrao Mule,
              Age about 53 years, Occupation
              Agriculture, R/o Daithana, Taluka





              Kaij, District Beed.

     5.       Angad S/o Bhimrao Mule,
              Aged about 54 years, Occupation
              Agriculture, R/o Daithana, Taluka
              Kaij, District, Beed.





     6.       Sumant S/o Bhimrao Mule,
              Aged about 50 years, Occupation
              Agriculture, R/o Daithana, Taluka
              Kaij, District Beed.

     7.       Bhimrao S/o Abarao Mule,
              Age about 80 years, Occupation
              Agriculture, R/o Daithana, Taluka
              Kaij, District Beed.                  ...PETITIONERS




    ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:32:30 :::
                                                 2                         WP-7066.15


              versus




                                                                            
     1.       The State of Maharashtra,




                                                    
     2.       The Divisional Commissioner,
              Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

     3.       Sub-Divisional Officer and Land




                                                   
              Acquisition Officer No. 1, Bhoom.

     4.       The Collector, Osmanabad.                      ...RESPONDENTS




                                         
                                      .....
     Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for petitioners
     Smt. S.S. Raut, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4
                              ig      .....

                                   CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                            
                                           K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATED : 7 th JULY, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. Mr. Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the

petitioners are owners and possessors of land survey No. 4-A to

extent of 1 Hectare, 60 Aar situated at village Bahula, Ta. Kallam,

District Osmanabad. Vide award dated 29-03-1988, aforesaid land

of these petitioners was acquired for the purpose of extension of

Gaothan. The petitioners had challenged said award by filing writ

petition No. 810 of 1988. This Court initially granted stay, and as

such, the respondents did not take possession of the land. Writ

Petition was finally dismissed vide judgment and order dated

3 WP-7066.15

7/8-02-2001. In spite of the fact that said writ petition was

dismissed in February, 2001, still till date respondents have not

taken possession of said land. According to learned counsel in view

of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 (for short "Act of 2013") acquisition stands lapsed.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that Tahsildar

has received documents from Circle Officer such as Gram Panchayat

Resolution No. 5 stating that Gram Panchayat has passed resolution

to the effect that land survey No. 4-A situated at village Bahula, Ta.

Kallam, District Osmanabad i.e. acquired land is not suitable for

rehabilitation or extension of Gaothan and this land is not required.

According to learned AGP, amount of compensation pursuant to the

order dated 29-03-1988 was deposited on 13-09-1988. Learned

Assistant Government Pleader submits that it is because of the stay

operating in the earlier writ petition possession could not be taken.

According to Mr. Reddy petitioners had not withdrawn said amount.

4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned

counsel for respective parties. It is not disputed that till date

possession of the writ land has not been take by respondents

authorities though award is passed in the year 1988. It is also not

disputed that after dismissal of writ petition No. 810 of 1988 in

February, 2001 there were no prohibitory orders operating against

respondents to take possession. In view of the that, provisions of

4 WP-7066.15

sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would squarely

apply and acquisition shall stand lapsed.

5. In light of the above, acquisition proceedings vide award

dated 29-03-1988 in respect of land from Survey No. 4-A to extent

of 1 Hectare, 60 Aar of the petitioners situated at village Bahula, Ta.

Kallam, District Osmanabad stands lapsed.

6. Writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made

absolute accordingly. No costs.

                      Sd/-                                Sd/-
      

           [ K. K. SONAWANE, J.]           [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
   



     MTK