Bombay High Court
Western Coalfields Ltd., Through ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 2 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp1854.14.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1854 OF 2014
Western Coalfields Ltd.
Through Area General Manager,
Wani Area, Tadali, Urjagram,
Distt. Chandrapur. :: PETITIONER
.. Versus
..
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation, No.2, Yavatmal.
2. Managal Vithu Dahake
aged about 55 yrs., Occp. Agriculture,
r/o Niljai, Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal.
3. Ganpat Raghunath Bhogekar (Dead)
Lrs. of respondent No.3.
Manda Nagoba Awari
Patwari Colony, Near Munje Hospital,
Ward No.4, At Post Wani, Tah. Wani,
Distt. Yavatmal. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S. J. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri A. R. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent No.3.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 02 MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent
wp1854.14.odt 2/4
of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petition arises out of some peculiar facts. Land bearing
khasra No.257 ad-measuring 7.47 H.R. originally owned by
respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 had assessed the compensation
payable to original respondent No.3 in respect of 7.47 H.R. land and
accordingly the compensation was paid to him. Thereafter,
respondent No.3 had preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement, which was enhanced by the
Civil Court. The appeal filed by the present petitioner being First
Appeal No.517 of 2004 challenging the enhancement of compensation
was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated
22/7/2010.
3. In the said acquisition proceedings, land gat No.265 of one
Smt. Bahinabai was also acquired and the amount of compensation
was enhanced by the Civil Court on 04/9/2008. After the award was
passed 23 landholders had moved an application under Section 28A of
the said Act for enhancement of the compensation, one of such
applicants was respondent No.2. It was contended by respondent
No.2 that he had purchased an area of 2.83 H.R. out of land gat
No.257 from respondent No.3 and claimed that he had received the
amount of compensation as determined by respondent No.1 on
08/8/1990. The reply was filed by the petitioner contending therein
wp1854.14.odt 3/4
that respondent No.2 was not the owner of land gat No.257. It was
also submitted that land gat No.257 was owned by respondent No.3 at
the time of acquisition and the compensation of award was granted
and paid to him. However, respondent No.1 vide the impugned award
had awarded the compensation to respondent No.2 by observing
therein that respondent No.2 had purchased 2.83 H.R. land out of gat
No.257 from respondent No.3 by registered sale deed dated
16/10/1986 and it was given separate gat No. 257/1.
4. After the first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed
by this Court, original respondent No.3 had withdrawn the entire
amount of compensation, which was deposited by the petitioner in this
Court. Subsequent to withdrawal of amount respondent No.3 has died
in the year 2006 and as such his only heir is brought on record.
5. It is not in dispute that original respondent No.3 had
executed the sale deed for an area ad-measuring 2.83 H.R. out of gat
No.257 in favour of respondent No.2. However, it appears that
original respondent No.3 concealed this fact and as such obtained
compensation for the entire land. To some extent, the blame would
also go on to respondent No.2 as he was not diligent in prosecuting
the remedy. Be that as it may. It is not in dispute that the original
respondent No.3 has received the entire compensation of the land in
gat No.257 ad-measuring 7.47 H.R. Undisputedly, out of the said
wp1854.14.odt 4/4
compensation, it is the respondent No.2, who was entitled to get
compensation of land ad-measuring 2.83 H.R.
6. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
Clause-(a).
While allowing the petition, we clarify that since
respondent No.3 has received the amount to which he was not entitled
and since the petitioner was entitled to the amount towards 2.83 H.R.
land out of gat No.257, he will be entitled to prosecute such remedy as
permissible in law against the estate of respondent No.3. Since
respondent No.2 was prosecuting the remedy before the competent
forum, though erroneously, we direct that respondent No.2 would be
entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act till the period of
passing of the present order.
JUDGE JUDGE
wwl
