Bombay High Court
Sambha Purshottam Palikondawar, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Mumbai & ... on 3 August, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp.1577.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION N0.1577/2002
1) Sambha Purushottam Palikondawar
Ahed about 85 years, occu: Nil
R/o Hatkeshwar Ward
Pusad, Taluqa & Dist. Yavatmal.
2) Kalidas Sabha Palikondawar
Dead : Through LRs:
2A) Smt.Prabha Kalidas Palikondawar
Aged about 22 years
2B) Yogesh Kalidas Palikondawar
Aged about 21 years
2C) Sau. Manisha Raju Gogulwar
Aged about 33 years
All R/o Washim New Mumbai.
2D) Sau. Vaishali w/o Samir Gadam
Aged about 31 years, R/o Ushakal
Bid, Tah.& Dist. Beed.
2E) Sau. Madhuri Sachin Kaulwar
Aged about 29 year, R/o Bhagya
Nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
2F) Sau. Kiran Devendra Kotalwar
Aged about 25 years, R/o Viman
Nagar, Pune.
(Amended as per Court's order
dated 13.4.2006)
3) Vilas Sambha Palikondawar
Aged abotu 54 years, occu: Agril.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:43:19 :::
wp.1577.02
2
R/o Hatkeshwar Ward,
Pusad, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.
4) Diwakar Sambha Palikondawar
Aged about 50 years, occu: Agril.
R/o Hatkeshwar Ward
Pusad, Tq.& Dist. Yavatmal. ..PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2) The Municipal Council, Pusad,
Through the Chief Engineer
Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
3) Director,
Town Planning, Central offices,
Pune-411 001.
4) Deputy Director,
Town Planning, Amravati Division
Amravati.
5) Assistant Director,
Town Planning,
Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal. ..RESPONDENTS
.
.........................................................................................................................
Mr. M.V. Samarth, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent nos.1, 3,4 & 5
Mr. R.S.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 3 rd
August, 2017
wp.1577.02
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.K. DESHPANDE, J.)
The land belonging to the petitioners was acquired under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in
short, "MRTP Act") by the respondent-Municipal Council, Pusad. Though the
possession was taken on 22.1.1994, 1.8.1996 and 29.10.1996, the amount
of compensation was not paid. It was offered on 6.2.2004 after this Court
passed an order on 20th February 2004. It is informed that the petitioners
have received the amount of compensation. In view of the order dated 20th
th
February, 2004 passed by this Court, the only question remained to be
considered was the validity of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 129 of
the MRTP Act.
2. The provisions of Section 129(2) being relevant, is reproduced
below :
" 129 (2) : Where possession of land is taken under sub-section (1),
the Planning Authority, the Development Authority or as the case
may be, appropriate Authority, shall subject to the provisions of
sub-section (1), pay to the owner concerned interest at 4 per cent
per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of taking
possession of the land under acquisition to the date of payment."
As per the aforesaid provision, the land owner is entitled to get
wp.1577.02
interest @ 4% per annum, on the amount of compensation from the date of
taking possession of the land to the date of the payment. Shri Samarth, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act the rate of interest payable is of 9% and
15%. He, therefore, submits that the provisions of sub-clause (2) of Section
129 of the MRTP Act to the extent it deprives the petitioner right to get
interest in terms of the similar provision under the Land Acquisition Act is
unconstitutional.
3. It is well settled that the validity of the provisions of the Act
cannot be challenged in comparison with similar provision in any other
enactment. In our view, though the Land Acquisition Act prescribes 12%
rate of interest under sub-Section (1-A) of Section 23 from the date of
possession or award, as the case may be, till the actual payment, the
question of sub-section (2) of Section 129 of MRTP Act becoming
unconstitutional, does not at all arise. We, therefore, reject the said plea
raised in this petition.
4. Shri Samarth, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have not been paid the amount of interest even at the rate of
4% as required by sub-section (2) of Section 129 of the MRTP Act. If this
wp.1577.02
is the position, then we direct the respondent-Municipal Council to pay an
amount of interest @ 4 % per annum from 29.10.1996 till 6.2.2004 if it is
not already paid. The amount of interest be paid within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the Municipal
Council. The Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
