Bombay High Court
Pramod S/O Deolal Borde And 6 ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp2671.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2671 OF 2015
1. Pramod s/o Deolal Borde
2. Vipin s/o Murlidhar Goenka
3. Sadashiv s/o Kisan Sirsat
4. Shriram Narayan Agrawal
5. Anandkumar Brijlal Chaurasiya
6. Sau. Sunanda Tayade
7. Balu s/o Sheshrao Murumkar
All major, occupation - Agriculture,
All r/o Yeota, Tq. & Post - Akola,
Akola. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through Collector, Akola.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Akola Irrigation Division, Akola.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
K.P.M.P., Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mrs. K.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. I.K. JAIN, JJ.
JUNE 06, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Kalmegh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mrs. Joshi, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3
and Shri Jagtap, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. Writ Petition is already admitted. Government
Resolutions having bearing on demand are sought to be
produced on record vide Civil Application No. 120 of 2016.
3. The respondents fairly gave their no objection.
4. Accordingly, Civil Application No. 120 of 2016 is
allowed. The necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.
5. Upon joint request Writ Petition No. 2671 of 2015 is
taken up for final hearing.
6. According to Shri Kalmegh, learned counsel, the
possession is lost on 17.03.1998 while notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) was issued on 02.03.2000. He,
therefore, states that mention in award under Section 11 of the
Act that possession is delivered on 24.05.2004 is incorrect.
7. Shri Jagtap, learned counsel is relying upon a copy
of Schedule 'A' filed on record by Respondent No. 2 along with
an affidavit to urge that therein fact of handing over of
possession on 24.05.2004 is admitted by the petitioners.
8. Shri Kalmegh, learned counsel is attempting to
invite our attention to the document of handing over of
possession by the petitioners which shows that possession was
taken on 17.03.1998 while some amount was paid to respective
petitioners. This document is not part of record.
9. Mrs. Joshi, learned AGP states that thus a disputed
question of fact is raised before this Court for the first time.
10. The policy decision of the State Government
enables the petitioners to claim rental compensation if the
possession is taken over prior to issuance of Section 4
notification under the Land Acquisition Act. If the contention
of the petitioners is accepted, they lost possession prior to said
date. However, the petitioners, for the reasons best known to
them, could not produce relevant documents on record.
11. As their lands are already acquired and the law
obliges Government to pay to them just compensation, we
grant the petitioners leave to make appropriate representation
claiming rental compensation from 17.03.1998 till 02.03.2000.
If such an application is made within a period of six weeks from
today with relevant documents, Respondent No. 3 or such other
authority as Respondent No. 1 may in this case authorize, shall
conduct appropriate inquiry. An opportunity of hearing shall
be extended to the petitioners as also to Respondent No. 2. The
decision about entitlement of the petitioners to rental
compensation shall be taken within a period of three months.
If any amount is found payable to the petitioners, the same
shall be paid to them within a period of next three months.
Acceptance of that amount shall not preclude the petitioners
from challenging the correctness of the exercise undertaken by
the respondents.
12. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
