Bombay High Court
Sushilaben Wd/O Shanabhai Patel ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 22 September, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
criwp632.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 632 of 2014
1. Sushilaben widow of Shanabhai
Patel,
aged about 75 years,
occupation - Business &
cultivation,
2. Paresh son of Maganbhai
Patel,
aged about 56 years,
occupation - Business,
3. Nikul son of Maganbhai
Patel,
aged about 54 years,
occupation - Business &
cultivation,
4. Jayashree widow of Sudhir
Patel,
aged about 61 years,
occupation - Business &
cultivation,
all residents of Patel Gin,
Babupeth, Chandrapur,
Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur [MS]. ..... Petitioners.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:13:56 :::
criwp632.14
2
Home Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
3. Collector, Chandrapur,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur [MS].
4. Superintendent of Police,
Chandrapur,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur [MS].
5. Shri R.P. Targe,
Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Pandharkawada,
Tq. Kelapur,
Distt. Yavatmal [MS].
6. Shri S.V. Giri,
Deputy Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Pandharkawada,
Tq. Kelapur,
Distt. Yavatmal [MS].
7. Shri Ashok Pachpor,
Junior Engineer, PWD,
Pandharkawada,
Tq. Kelapur,
Distt. Yavatmal [MS].
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:13:56 :::
criwp632.14
3
8. Director of Land Records,
Maharshtra State,
Central Building,
Pune,
Tq. Pune,
Distt. Pune [MS].
9. Superintendent of Land Records,
Chandrapur,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur [MS].
10. Shri B.D. Kurwade,
Dy. Superintendent of Land
Records, Chandrapur,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur [MS].
11. Shri D. M. Nichat,
Surveyor,
Dy. Superintendent of Land
Records, Chandrapur,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur [MS].
12. Shri Shiv Prasad Gaurkar
Dy. Superintendent of Land
Records, Khandala,
Tq. Khandala,
Distt. Satara [MS].
13. IVRCL Infrastructure &
Project Ltd.,
through Chairman E Sudhir
Reddy,
at 'MIHIR',
H. No. 8-2-350/5/A/24/1B,
Panchavati Colony,
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:13:56 :::
criwp632.14
4
Road No.2, Banjara Hills-3
[Telangana] 500 034.
14. IVRCL Chandrapur Tollways
Ltd.
through Director Rajesh
Laxmikant Mamidwar
at 'MIHIR',
H. No. 8-2-350/5/A/24/1B,
Panchavati Colony,
Road No.2, Banjara Hills-3
[Telangana] 500 034.
15. Shri Peshkar,
C/o IVRCL Site Office,
at Ddhanora,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur.
16. Shri Jagdish Anil Pise,
C/o IVRCL Site Office,
at Ddhanora,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur.
17. Shri Ganesh Shinde,
Tahsildar,
Chandrapur,
Tq. Chandrapur,
Distt. Chandrapur. ..... Respondents.
*****
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Adv., with Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Adv., for
the petitioners.
Mr. Jawade, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent nos. 1 to 4, 8
and 9.
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:13:56 :::
criwp632.14
5
Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 13,15 and 16.
*****
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 22nd Sept., 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.] :
01. Heard finally.
02. On 05th August, 2014, this Court had issued notice in the
matter and directed the parties to maintain status quo. During further
hearing, it was felt prima facie that possession of land was never taken
and hence efforts were made to see whether the issue can be resolved
in public interest.
03. Land of petitioners was notified for acquisition under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and acquisition proceedings culminated into
Award under Section 11 on 31st March, 1999. However, there is no
document to show that possession of acquired land was thereafter
taken from petitioner as per law.
criwp632.14
04. Petitioners have made a grievance about their forcible
dispossession and, therefore, commission of offences under Sections
447 and 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on 25th July,
2014, when they have been forcibly dispossessed. This complaint to
the Superintendent of Police dated 28th July, 2014 was preceded by a
notice dated 10th July, 2014, pointing out that possession was never
taken and petitioners could not have been forcibly dispossessed.
the complaint to the Superintendent of Police lodged on 28th July,
In
2014, petitioners have given details of mode and manner in which they
are dispossessed. They have also mentioned that Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Ghuggus, has videographed the entire episode through
the Police Constable - Shankar Gharde.
05. The Superintendent of Police has filed a Reply-Affidavit
before this Court, which does not indicate whether said Superintendent
of Police has examined this video recording. The reply filed by the
Superintendent of Police or then by the Collector, Chandrapur, or other
Govt. Officers does not indicate the date on which possession was
taken from the petitioners. Though petitioners have placed on record
two Possession Receipts as Annexs. P-8 & P-9, petitioners have pointed
out that both are undated and without any signature. This fact is also
criwp632.14
overlooked by the Superintendent of Police.
06. The respondents could have come up with a case that after
possession was taken from the petitioners as per law or ex parte, they
have again encroached upon and taken back the possession of
acquired land. However, that is not the defence before this Court.
07.
Realizing all this, on 21st December, 2015, this Court
passed an order calling upon the Divisional Commissioner to pass an
order in the matter of determination of compensation. The Divisional
Commissioner has passed an order on 30th April, 2016 holding that
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, are not
applicable in present matter. Petitioners before this Court sought
leave to challenge that order by moving Criminal Application No. 142
of 2016 in present proceedings only. However, after realizing the
nature of said challenge, today, that application has been withdrawn
with liberty to file appropriate civil proceedings in that respect.
08. The public road has been constructed on lands of other fifty-
three land owners. Thus, construction of road on either side upto the
criwp632.14
land allegedly acquired from the field of petitioners is over. If
intervening portion is built, the road will be complete. All these facts
weighed with this Court in passing the order dated 21st December,
2015. Petitioners then had also not opposed passing of this order.
09. In this situation, we find that the complaint as filed by the
present petitioners on 28th July, 2014 needed to be registered as First
Information Report and appropriate action in response thereto ought to
have been initiated. Refusal of respondent no.4 to do so is
unsustainable. Accordingly, we direct the respondent no.4 to take
cognizance of the grievance contained in the report dated 28th July,
2014 and to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
10. Criminal Writ Petition No. 632 of 2014 is, thus, partly
allowed. No costs.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
criwp632.14
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 23rd Sept. 2016
Pvt. Secretary.
ig -0-0-0-0-
criwp632.14
