Chandrakant Bhujangrao Kore vs The State Of Maharashtr And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 1901 Bom

                                                            936wp10157-16.odt
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 10157 OF 2016

1. Chandrakant s/o Bhujangrao Kore ... Petitioners 
   Age 55 years, Occu: Agri.
   R/o Kumbhephal, Tq. Paranda
   Dist. Osmanabad

      VERSUS

1.  The State of Maharashtra,
    Through its Secretary,
    Revenue and Forest Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

2. The Special Land Acquisition 
   Officer, Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad

3. The Sub Divisional Officer,                  ...       Respondents.
   Bhoom Dist. Osmanabad

4. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, 
   Paranda, Taluka Paranda Dist. 
   Osmanabad


Mr. Pankaj A.  Bharat, Advocate for Petitioner 
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondents State 

                                CORAM   :  R. M. BORDE & 
                                            K. L. WADANE, JJ.
                                 DATE   :   20th April, 2017

JUDGMENT (Per R. M. Borde, J.):                     

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. With the consent of the parties, taken up for

final disposal at the admission stage.

3. Land belonging to the petitioner out of Gat

936wp10157-16.odt No.82 to the extent of 80 R was proposed to be

acquired for extension of Gaothan at Kumbhephal Tq.

Paranda. Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 27.09.1990 and

after observing the procedure prescribed under the

Act, an award came to be passed on 14.12.1992. The

petitioner challenged the acquisition proceeding by

presenting Writ Petition No.167/1993. The High Court,

initially, granted stay in respect of handing over

of possession of the acquired land. Writ petition was

however, dismissed on 21.10.2004. After dismissal of

the writ petition, the respondents have neither taken

possession of the acquired property nor have paid

amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner. As

such, in view of operation of Section 24(2) the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act,

2013, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to

have lapsed and if at all the State Government needs

to have property, fresh proceedings shall have to be

initiated.

4. Affidavit in reply has been presented on behalf

of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by the Tahsildar, Pananda.

936wp10157-16.odt In the affidavit in reply, it has been stated that

symbolic possession of the land was taken on 06.09.93

from the land over. However, the petitioner is stated

to have encroached upon the said land and asserted

the physical possession since 1993. It is also further

stated that the land is not required for extension of

the Gavthan by the State government. It is admitted

that the amount of compensation has not been paid to

the petitioner. In view of the fact that physical

possession of the land is with the petitioner and that

he has not been paid the amount of compensation

determined under the Award declared in 1992, the

proceedings in respect of acquisition shall be deemed

to have lapsed, in view of provisions of section 24(2)

of the Act, 2013. It is also stated on behalf of

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the State Government does

not need the land for extension of Gavthan.

5. Taking into consideration all these aspects,

the award declared on 14.12.20192 deserves to be

quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. It would

however be open for the respondents to initiate fresh

proceedings and acquire the property, if any need

arises for such acquisition for any public purpose,

936wp10157-16.odt by taking recourse to provisions of the Act of 2013.

6. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall

be no order as to costs.

(K. L. WADANE, J.)                  (R. M. BORDE, J. ) 


JPC