Bombay High Court
Shri Maruti Baburao Manjare vs The Land Aquisition Officer No.13 ... on 24 April, 2017
pvr 1 34wp2341-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 2341 OF 2016
Shri Maruti Baburao Manjare ...Petitioner
Versus
The Land Aquisition Officer No.13 & Ors ...Respondents
---
Mr.P.B.Shah i/b. Mr.Kayval Shah, for the Petitioner
Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for the State-Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
---
CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J., &
G.S.KULKARNI, J.
DATE
APRIL 24, 2017 :
---
JUDGMENT: (Per: G.S.Kulkarni,J.)
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the parties.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks a relief that the land acquisition
proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 to acquire petitioner's
land bearing Gat No.457 (Old Gat No.288/1) situated at Village
Pondewadi, Taluka Ambegaon, District Pune, admeasuring 8.34
Hector (for short 'the said land') have lapsed in view of the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013(for short '2013 Act').
pvr 2 34wp2341-16.doc
3. In brief the facts are :-
The case of the petitioner is that the father of the
petitioner - Late Baburao Tukaram Manjare was the owner of the
land in question. He died on 12 February 1977 leaving behind the
petitioner and two daughters. The land in question is an
agricultural land under cultivation was the only source of
livelihood for the family. On 13 December 1984, respondent No.1
published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act') which included
land admeasuring 7.04 hector out of the land in question. It was
proposed to be acquired for construction of 'Dimbhe irrigation
project'. Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act
came to be issued on 4 March 1987 and finally an award came to
be made on 25 March 1987 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act
whereby an amount of Rs.60,355.75 came to be awarded as
compensation to the petitioner's father. After the award, the
petitioner had raised an objection that alternative land be
acquired, however, the same did not find response from the
respondents.
4. It is the petitioner's case that a paper panchanama in
regard to the said land was carried out on 23 April 1997 by the
respondents. It is averred that however till date the actual and
physical possession of the suit land has continued to be with the
petitioner. It is stated that the respondents however have made
pvr 3 34wp2341-16.doc
endorsements in the revenue record and it was shown that the
land was allotted to one Sitaram Kushaba Salve a project affected
person, to the extent of 1.21 hector. The petitioner, therefore,
filed Rehabilitation Appeal No.62 of 2004 on 5 April 2004 before
the Commissioner, Pune Region under Section 48(1) of the 1894
Act, praying that the acquisition of the land in question be
withdrawn. In the said appeal, initially an interim order of stay to
the acquisition of the land came to be granted by an order dated 6
April 2004. However, by an order dated 19 November 2008 the
said appeal of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground
that the possession of the suit land was taken over by Respondent
No.1 and, therefore, the authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain
the application under Section 48(1) of the 1894 Act.
5. The Petitioner has categorically averred in paragraph
(7) of the petition that Respondent No.1 has not made any
attempt to take physical possession of the suit land from the
petitioner even for the purpose of construction of the proposed
irrigation project except preparing a paper panchanama and that
the physical possession of the land continues with the petitioner.
Also a specific averment is made in the petition that till the filing
of this petition, the compensation amount has not been paid to
the petitioner although the acquisition proceedings were initiated
way back in the year 1985 culminating into an award dated 23
March 1987.
pvr 4 34wp2341-16.doc
6. It is, thus, the contention of the petitioner that Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act has become applicable and thus by
operation of law the acquisition proceedings have lapsed on both
the counts as a consequence of the said provision namely the
physical possession of the land being not taken over by the
respondent as also the amount of compensation being not paid to
the petitioner. In support of this contention, the petitioner has
placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of "Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs.Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors."1.
7. On behalf of the respondents, a reply affidavit of
Snehal Ravindra Barge, Deputy Collector Land Acquisition No.13,
Pune is placed on record. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, the
deponent has not disputed the dates pertaining to the acquisition
of the land culminating into an award being passed on 25 March
1987. The deponent has stated that a notice under Section 12(2)
of the 1894 Act was issued to the petitioner whereby he was
called to receive the compensation, the notice jad stated that if the
petitioner was to remain absent to receive compensation, the
possession of the acquired land would be taken over under a
panchanama. It is stated that on the date specified in the notice,
the petitioner did not remain present to receive the compensation
amount and therefore, the possession of the acquired land was
handed over to the acquiring body under a possession receipt
1 2014(3) SCC 183
pvr 5 34wp2341-16.doc
dated 23 April 1987. It is further stated that as the petitioner
never accepted the compensation amount, the same has been
deposited in the Government treasury. It is further stated that
from the date of issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the
1894 Act, the compensation has not been claimed by the
Petitioner. In the reply affidavit, there is no denial of the specific
case of the petitioner that physical possession of the land
continues to be with the petitioner.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
with their assistance having perused the pleadings, we find that
there is much substance in the contention as urged on behalf of
the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings qua the petitioner's
land have lapsed by operation of law namely sub-section (2) of
Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Perusal of the reply affidavit clearly
indicates that the amount of compensation has not been paid to
the petitioner. The law in this regard is well settled as also
considered by us in the case of "Santosh Dnyaneshwar Aher
Vs.State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Ors."2
wherein considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki & Ors. (supra) and Delhi Development Authority Vs.
Sukhbir Singh & Ors.3 and the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in "Shri. Bapuso Narayan Kulkarni (deceased)
2 WP 3238 of 2015 decided on 17.1.2017
3 AIR 2016 SC 4275
pvr 6 34wp2341-16.doc
through Lrs and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors."4,
it was held that mere deposit of the amount in the government
treasury was not sufficient to hold that the amount of
compensation is paid to the person whose land stood acquired.
Section 31 of the 1894 Act would require that the amount is
required to be deposited in the Court. The provisions of Section
31(2) of the 1894 Act with regard to deposit of the compensation
in the Court are mandatory in nature and the intention of the
legislature is further fortified by the provisions of Sections 32, 33
and 34 of the 1894 Act.
9. In the present case, adverting to the principles of law
as enunciated in the above decisions, it would be required to be
held that the acquisition of the petitioner's land has lapsed in view
of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non
payment of compensation. We may also observe that as regards
the other ground as urged under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
namely the possession of the land being not taken over by
respondents in the present case, there is no material placed on
record by the respondents to show that the physical possession of
the land has been taken over by the respondents. The specific case
of the petitioner that he continues in possession of the land, has
also not been denied in the reply affidavit. The acquisition,
therefore, would lapse even on this count as well.
4 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 384
pvr 7 34wp2341-16.doc
10. Resultantly, we allow the Writ Petition by the
following order:-
ORDER
(I) The acquisition proceedings in relation to the land of the
Petitioner bearing Gat No.457 (Old Gat No.288/1) admeasuring
7.04 Hectors situated at Village Pondewadi, Taluka-Ambegaon,
District- Pune, being the subject matter of acquisition, under a
Notification dated 13 March 1985 issued under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act,1894, stand lapsed in view of sub-section 2
of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency
In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act,2013.
(II) We make it clear that the acquisition would stand lapsed
only in relation to the land which is subject matter of this petition
and no adjudication is made as regards the legality and validity of
acquisition of other lands if any, which may form subject matter of
the Award.
(III) We also clarify that if the land in question is required
by the respondents for public purpose, it would be open for the
respondents to acquire the same under the provisions of the Right
to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act,2013 as Section 24(2) would
provide.
pvr 8 34wp2341-16.doc
(IV) Rule is made absolute accordingly in the above terms.
No costs.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
