Bombay High Court
Ganesh S/O. Atmaram Thakare, ... vs The State Of Maha., Thr Its ... on 21 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.2308.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 2308/2016
1) Ganesh s/o Atmaram Thakare
Age 32 years, occu: Agri.
2) Motiram s/o Tukaram Thakare
Age 62 years, occu: Agri.
3) Kashiram s/o Tukaram Thakare
(since deceased Through LRs:
Gayabai Kashiram Thakare
Age 55 years, occu: Agri.
4) Sheshrao s/o Sampat Vanjari
Age 60 years, occu: Agri.
5) Kishor s/o Ashru Thakare
Aged 39 years, occu; Agri.
6) Fakira s/o Rambhau Gavhane
Aged 62 years, occu: Agri.
7) Baraku s/o Sakharam Kumbhar
Aged 60 years, occu:Agri.
8) Lodus/o Kathalu Thakare
Aged 80 years, occu; Agri.
9) Ragho s/o Namdeo Chavan
Aged 65 years, occu: Agri.
10) Laxman s/o Baburao Borkar
Aged 48 years, occu; Agri.
11) Namdeo s/o Kisan Gopal (Mahajan)
Age 55 years, occu; Agri.
wp.2308.16
12) Laxman s/o Ananda Navale,
Age 73 years, occu: Agri.
13) Deepak s/o Jayhari Thakare
Aged 35 years, occu; Agril.
All R/o Akola Thakare
Tal. Mehkar Dist. Buldana. ..PETITIONERS
v e r s u s
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2) The Secretary
Department of Employment
Guarantee Scheme
Maharashtra State
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3) The District Collector, Buldana.
4) The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(Medium Projects) Buldhana.
5) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldana.
6) The Deputy Collector (EGS) Buldhana.
7) Sub-Divisional Officer, Mehkar
Tal.mehkar Dist. Buldana.
8) The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Department
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
9) The Sub-Divisional Engineer
irrigation Sub-Division Mehkar
Tal. Mehkar Dist. Buldana.
wp.2308.16
10) The Director of Health Services
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
11) The Joint Director of Health Services
(Malaria and Filaria) Vishranti Wadi
New Yerwada Jail, Alandi Road
Pune Tal. & Dist. Pune.
(Respondent nos. 10 and 11 deleted
as per order dated 21.04.2016) ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Shri G.K.Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioners
Shrimati S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos.5,8 and 9
Mr. S.P.Deshpande, Addl.Govt.Pleader for Respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6,7
Respondent nos. 10 and 11 deleted
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 21st November, 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.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners seeks a direction against the
respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands of the
petitioners under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement)Act, 2013 and pay
compensation to the petitioners for the acquired land.
wp.2308.16
3. According to the petitioners, the lands of the petitioners were
acquired by the State of Maharashtra by private negotiations in the year 2005.
The possession of the lands of the petitioners was taken by the State
Government in the year 2005 and the respondents have constructed a
percolation tank on the lands of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners
that though the land of the petitioners was acquired by the State Government
in the year 2005 not a penny is paid to the petitioners towards compensation.
It is stated that due to the coming into force of the Act of 2013, it would be
incumbent on the part of the respondents to determine the compensation
payable to the petitioners under the provisions of the Act of 2013 and pay the
same to the petitioners at the earliest.
4. Shri S.P. Deshpande, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7 and Mrs. Sushma
Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.5,8, and 9 do not
dispute that the possession of the lands of the petitioners was secured and a
percolation tank had been constructed on the said land. The respondent nos.
5,8 and 9 one one hand and the respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 on the other
are, however, blaming each other for not paying the compensation to the
petitioners for the acquired land. According to the Additional Government
Pleader, steps were taken by the Government to ensure that the compensation
wp.2308.16
should be paid to the petitioners and according to respondent nos.5,8 and 9,
they were consistently writing to the respondent no.6 that they were ready to
deposit the compensation as determined provided the money is released by
the State Government.
5. It clearly appears from the statements recorded herein-above
and the statements made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
respondents that the possession of the land of the petitioners was admittedly
secured by the respondents for the purpose of construction of a percolation
tank and the percolation tank has been constructed on the said land. It is also
not disputed by the respondents that though the land of the petitioners is
acquired for a public purpose, the petitioners are not paid the compensation
towards the acquisition of the land. Since the respondents have acquired the
land of the petitioners in the year 2005 and the petitioners are not paid the
compensation towards the acquisition of the land, it would be necessary to
direct the respondents to initiate the proceedings under the Act of 2013 at
the earliest and grant compensation to the petitioners for the acquired land
by resorting to the provisions of the Act of 2013 while determining the
compensation. As the lands of the land-holders cannot be acquired by the
Government without paying compensation for the same, it would be
necessary to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners as
wp.2308.16
per the provisions of the Act of 2013.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to take up proceedings under the Act of 2013
and determine and pay compensation to the petitioners towards the
acquisition of the lands as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. The steps to
determine the compensation and pay the same to the petitioners should be
initiated by the State within a period of two months. The proceedings should
be completed and compensation should be paid to the petitioners, at the
earliest.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
