Bombay High Court
Tulshiram S/O. Pundlik Warpe vs The State Of Maha., Through Its ... on 1 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0109WP6665.15-Judgment 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Tulshiram S/o Pundlik Warpe, aged about
57 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, R/o at
village Pimpalwadi, Post Deulgaon, Dhangar,
Tah.Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest
ig Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Collector/Land Acquisition Officer,
Buldhana, Districtd Buldhana.
3. Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran, through its
Executive Engineer, Works Division,
Chimkhli, Tah. Chikhli, Dist. Buldhana.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharashtra
Jivan Pradhikaran, Works Division, Sub-
Division, Deulgaon Raja, Tah. Deulgaon
Raja, Dist. Buldhana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S.Fulzele, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. C. Raghorte, counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 01.09.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
0109WP6665.15-Judgment 2/7
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the
respondents to initiate the proceedings for the acquisition of the land
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 and pay
compensation to the petitioner, in accordance with law.
3. The petitioner was the owner of land bearing Gat No.45,
admeasuring 2000 sq.mtrs. (00.20 Ares). The respondent Nos.3 and 4
took the physical possession of the land of the petitioner for
construction of a water supply tank. The land was acquired for the
public purpose of construction of water supply tank and installation of
water treatment purification plant, on 02.12.2000. According to the
petitioner, the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Acquiring Body forwarded a
proposal to the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer for acquiring the land
of the petitioner by issuance of Section 4 Notification under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner made several representations to
the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and requested them to pay the
compensation to the petitioner. In turn, the respondent Nos.3 and 4
made representations to the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer
on several dates, to take appropriate action in the matter of payment of
compensation to the petitioner. Since no compensation is paid to the
petitioner towards the acquisition of the land, the petitioner has filed
the instant petition seeking a direction against the respondents to pay
0109WP6665.15-Judgment 3/7
the compensation to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act of
2013.
4. Shri N.B.Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the State or its Authorities cannot acquire the land of its
holder without following the due process of law. It is submitted that
the possession of the land of the petitioner was secured by the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the public purpose on 02.12.2000. It is
stated that since then, though the petitioner has made several
representations to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay compensation to
the petitioner, the compensation is not paid. It is stated that if the
compensation would have been paid before the coming into force of the
Act of 2013, the same would have been payable under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, but since the compensation is not paid till date
and since no award is passed before the coming into force of the Act of
2013, steps would be required to be taken by the respondents to pay the
compensation to the petitioner by an agreement or under the provisions
of the Act of 2013. It is stated that the petitioner would also be entitled
to the other benefits as per the State policies. It is stated that the
respondents cannot be permitted to avail the land of a landholder,
without paying compensation for the same. It is submitted that the
State was expected to pay the compensation to the petitioner
0109WP6665.15-Judgment 4/7
immediately after the acquisition of the land, but the same is not paid,
till date.
5. Shri A. S. Fulzele, the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, states that there is a
dispute whether the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had indeed sent the
proposal to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for grant of compensation to
the petitioner in the year 2000. It is, however, fairly admitted that the
compensation is not paid to the petitioner, till date. It is stated that an
appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
6. Shri C. Raghorte, the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.3 and 4, admits that the possession of the land of the petitioner was
secured by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in December, 2000 for
construction of a water tank. It is stated that immediately after the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 proposed to acquire the land of the petitioner,
they sent the proposal to the respondent No.2-Collector/Special Land
Acquisition Officer for taking steps under the Act of 1894 for the
acquisition of the land. It is stated that there is inaction on the part of
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and proceedings were not initiated under
the Act of 1894, despite the fact that the proposal was received by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel however, did not dispute
that compensation is not paid to the petitioner.
0109WP6665.15-Judgment 5/7
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the land of the petitioner has been secured by the respondent Nos.3
and 4 for the public purpose, without paying a single pai to the
petitioner, towards compensation. It would be necessary for the State
and its Authorities to adhere to the provisions relating to the acquisition
of land before acquiring the land of a person. It was necessary for the
respondents to have followed the procedure under the Land Acquisition
Act and/or could have paid the compensation to the petitioner by
compromise/agreement. However, the respondents have neither
initiated the proceedings for the acquisition of the land and payment of
compensation under the Act of 1894, nor have they entered into an
agreement with the petitioner for payment of certain amount towards
compensation, on an agreement. The compensation is not paid to the
petitioner and no proceedings are initiated by the respondents under
the Act of 1894, though the land of the petitioner is acquired since the
year 2000. Now in view of the coming into force the Act of 2013, since
the compensation is not determined or paid to the petitioner, till date, it
would be necessary for the respondents to either initiate the
proceedings under the Act of 2013 to pay the compensation and other
benefits to the petitioner or to enter into a settlement with the
petitioner to pay compensation as per the agreement.
0109WP6665.15-Judgment 6/7
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to pay compensation
to the petitioner either by entering into a settlement/agreement with
the petitioner or by initiating the proceedings under the Act of 2013 for
payment of compensation. We grant four months to the respondents to
enter into a settlement with the petitioner and if the same is not
possible, we direct the respondents to take steps under the Act of 2013
for payment of compensation to the petitioner, within a period of six
months from this date. It is needless to mention that if a compromise is
not materialized, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would send the proposal
to the State/Collector/Land Acquisition Officer for taking steps under
the Act of 2013 within fifteen days from the expiry of the period of four
months. It is further needless to mention that the petitioner would be
entitled to all the benefits that are admissible to a land-holder as per the
policies of the State Government. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
0109WP6665.15-Judgment 7/7
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 02/09/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
