Bombay High Court
Ravindra Manohar Nagpure vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 April, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp10442.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10442 OF 2016
Ravindra s/o Manohar Nagpure
age 52 years, occ. Business
r/o Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Collector, Ahmednagar
Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer /
Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur
Division, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
4. The Municipal Council
Through its Chief Officer,
Shrdi, Tq. Rahata
Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust
Shrdi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar
Through its Chief Executive Officer Respondents
Mr. V.P. Latange, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3.
Mr. N.R. Bhawar, advocate for respondent no. 5.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 25th APRIL, 2017
{2}
wp10442.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties.
3. Petitioner is seeking declaration that the award dated
13.08.2007 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur shall stand lapsed by virtue of
provisions of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation And
Transparency in Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 2013') in relation to the
property belonging to petitioner being CTS No. 65 situate at Shirdi,
Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. It is not a matter of dispute that the aforesaid property
belonging to petitioner has been acquired for public purpose and
the award has also been declared on 13.08.2007. Petitioner
contends that though the award is declared in the year 2007,
possession of the property has not been taken over nor he has
refused the amount of compensation. Petitioner as such contends
that in view of provisions of section 24 of the Act of 2013, the
proceeding for acquisition shall stand lapsed.
5. The petition is opposed by respondents contending that
possession of the property has already been taken over and the
contention raised by petitioner in that regard is devoid of
{3}
wp10442.16.odt
substance. It is further contended that the amount of
compensation was offer to petitioner however, he refused to accept
the same. Since petitioner denies the contention as regards taking
over of possession, we do not propose to go into the disputed
questions of fact. Since the petitioner contends that he has not
received the amount of compensation and that the amount of
compensation has not been deposited in the Court where
ordinarily reference application against the award lies, it cannot be
construed that there is payment of amount of compensation
determined under the award within contemplation of provisions of
section 24(2) of the Act. In the event, the owner of the property
refuses to accept the amount, it is obligatory on the part of the
Collector to deposit the same in the Court where ordinarily
reference against the award lies. The issue is no more res integra
and is covered by judgment in the matter of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
others reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183. In
paragraph nos. 17 and 18 of the judgment, the Apex Court has
observed thus :
17. While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament
definitely had in its view Section 31 of the
1894 Act. From that one thing is clear that it
did not intend to equate the word "paid" to
"offered" or "tendered". But at the same time,
we do not think that by use of the word "paid",
Parliament intended receipt of compensation
by the landowners/persons interested. In our
view, it is not appropriate to give a literal
construction to the expression "paid" used in
this sub-section [sub-section (2) of Section
24]. If a literal construction were to be given,
then it would amount to ignoring the
procedure, mode and manner of deposit
provided in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in the
{4}
wp10442.16.odt
event of happening of any of the contingencies
contemplated therein which may prevent the
Collector from making actual payment of
compensation. We are of the view, therefore,
that for the purposes of Section 24(2), the
compensation shall be regarded as "paid" if
the compensation has been offered to the
person interested and such compensation has
been deposited in the court where reference
under section 18 can be made on happening of
any of the contingencies contemplated under
Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In other words,
the compensation may be said to have been
"paid" within the meaning of Section 24(2)
when the Collector (or for that matter Land
Acquisition Officer) has discharged his
obligation and deposited the amount of
compensation in court and made that amount
available to the interested person to be dealt
with as provided in Sections 32 and 33.
18. The 1894 Act being an expropriatory
legislation has to be strictly followed. The
procedure, mode an manner for payment of
compensation are prescribed in Part V
(Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The
Collector, with regard to the payment of
compensation, can only act in the manner so
provided. It is settled proposition of law
(classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir
Ahmad) that where a power is given to do a
certain thing in a certain way, the thing must
be done in that way or not at all. Other
methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden.
Thus, the contention raised by respondents that since the
petitioner refused to accept the amount of compensation it shall be
deemed as payment of amount within contemplation of provisions
of the Act is devoid of substance and deserves to be rejected.
{5}
wp10442.16.odt
6. It is not a matter of dispute that the award has been declared
on 13.08.2007 and the provisions of the Act of 2013 are enforced
since 01.01.2014. It also must be concluded that since the amount
of compensation has not been deposited in the Court, there is no
valid payment of amount of compensation to the petitioner. Since
the award has been passed five years before enforcement of the Act
of 2013 and, since the amount of compensation has not been paid
to the owner, by virtue of section 24(2) it shall be deemed that the
proceedings of acquisition have lapsed and the appropriate
Government shall initiate the proceeding of such land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the
circumstances, it is declared that the proceedings for acquisition
have lapsed and, it would be open for the appropriate Government
to initiate proceedings for acquisition in relation to the property of
the petitioner in accordance with the provision of the Act. Rule is
accordingly made absolute. No costs.
( K. L. WADANE ) ( R.M.BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
