Bombay High Court
Subhash S/O Sundarlal Rathi And 2 ... vs The Maharashtra State Road ... on 29 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 judg.wp 2005.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No.2005/2015
1] Subhash s/o Sundarlal Rathi,
Aged about 67 years, Occ.-Agriculture,
2] Arun s/o Sundarlal Rathi,
Aged about 62 years, Occ.-Agriculture,
3] Chandrashekhar s/o Sundarlal Rathi,
Aged about 58 years, Occ.-Business,
All residents of Seloo, Tahsil Seloo,
District Wardha. PETITIONERS
ig .....VERSUS.....
1] The Maharashtra State Road Development
Corporation, having its Registered Office at
Nepian Sea Road, Priyadarshani Park, Mumbai-400 036.
2] The Superintending Engineer,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Near Patwardhan High School,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur- 440 012.
3] The District Collector,
Civil Lines, Wardha.
4] Special Land Acquisition Officer (General),
Wardha, Administrative Building Behind Collector
Office, Civil Lines, Wardha. R
ESPONDENTS
Shri Agrawal, Advocate holding for
Shri V.M. Gadkari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kinkhede, Advocate holding for
Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Ms Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
Coram : Smt. Vasanti A Naik &
Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
Dated : 29
September, 2016.
th
2 judg.wp 2005.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for
the parties.
The petitioners are the owners of field survey no.81/1 of mouza Seloo.
The respondents decided to acquire the land of the petitioners to the extent of
1413.23 square meters for the construction of a bridge. The possession of the
land of the petitioners was secured by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on
07-04-2003. After securing the possession, the Section 4 Notification was
issued on 19-07-2004 and the Section 6 Notification was published on
18-07-2005. Despite the issuance of the Section 6 Notification as early as on
18-07-2005 the Land Acquisition Officer has not passed an award in the matter
of acquisition of the land of the petitioners to the extent of 1413.23 square
meters. The petitioners have therefore sought a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners have lapsed in
view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the
award is not passed within two years from the date of issuance of the Section 6
Notification.
Shri Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
though the Section 6 Notification was issued on 18-07-2005, the Land
Acquisition Officer has not passed the award till date. It is stated that in view
of the clear provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners would lapse. It
3 judg.wp 2005.15.odt
is stated that since the land of the petitioners was secured by the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 in the year 2003, and since the land acquisition proceedings in
respect of the land of the petitioners have lapsed in view of the provisions of
Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it would be necessary for the
respondents to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of the land under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Ms Tajwar Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 does not dispute that the Section 6
Notification was issued on 18-07-2005 and the award is not passed till date. It
is also not disputed that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the
land of the petitioners would lapse in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of
the Land Acquisition Act.
Shri Kinkhede, the learned Advocate holding for Mrs. Dangre, the
learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 also does not dispute that an
award is not passed in the matter of the acquisition of the land of the
petitioners. It is stated that though the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were not at
fault, they are penalized as they had deposited 2/3rd of the amount that was
liable to be paid to the petitioners towards compensation, with the State
Government in 2003. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in
the circumstances of the case.
In the admitted facts of the case, the relief sought by the petitioners
4 judg.wp 2005.15.odt
needs to be granted. Since an award is not passed in respect of the land of the
petitioners despite the issuance of the Section 6 Notification on 18-07-2005,
the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners have
lapsed. As the possession of the land of the petitioners was secured by the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the year 2003 for the construction of a bridge, it
would be necessary for the respondents to initiate the proceedings for the
acquisition of the land of the petitioners under the Act of 2013. The
respondents are therefore directed to initiate the proceedings under the Act of
2013 as early as possible and positively within three months. We permit the
respondent nos. 3 and 4 to withdraw the amount deposited by them in this
Court in terms of the order dated 09-08-2016 so that the same could be
utilized for payment of compensation to the petitioners in pursuance of the
acquisition of land of the petitioners by the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUD
GE
Deshmukh
5 judg.wp 2005.15.odt
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 : Uploaded on :
(Deshmukh) 01/10/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
