Bombay High Court
Madhukar S/O Ramlu Chintanwar vs Divisional Controller State Road ... on 13 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
1306WP4631.16-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4631 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Madhukar S/o Ramlu Chintawar, Aged
about 84 years, Occu.: Cultivator, R/o
Macchinala, Chandrapur, District
Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, Division Office,
Chandrapur.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Gadchiroli.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer and S.D.O.
Gadchiroli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.D.L.Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. V.G.Wankhede, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.H.R.Dhumale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 13.06.2017
1306WP4631.16-Judgment 2/6
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that
the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner
have lapsed in view of the provisions of section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transperancy in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. The State Government published the section 4 notification
expressing its intention to acquire the land of the petitioner and several
others for the purpose acquiring body i.e. the Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation on 12/10/1995. The section 6 notification was
issued in the year 1996. On 20/11/1998, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed the award. Being dissatisfied with the grant of meager
compensation, the petitioner filed an application under section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation. The
reference court partly allowed the reference filed by the petitioner and
directed the respondents i.e. the State Government and the Corporation
to pay enhanced compensation to the petitioner. The respondents have
filed a first appeal against the judgment and award passed by the
reference court and the same is pending. In 2013, the petitioner filed a
1306WP4631.16-Judgment 3/6
writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.3926 of 2013 for quashing and
setting aside the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
in view of the provisions of section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. In the said petition, a prayer was made by the petitioner for a
direction against the respondents to restore the possession of the
acquired land to the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed by
this court by the order dated 12/03/2014. The said order has attained
finality. After the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner has filed the
instant petition for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings
in respect of the land of the petitioner have lapsed in view of the
provisions of section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 as the possession of the
acquired land is not secured by the respondents till date. According to
the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to the declaration as
claimed, in view of the provisions of section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 as
though the petitioner has received the compensation for the land, as
determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per the award,
the possession of the land is not secured by the respondents.
3. The claim of the petitioner is seriously opposed by the
learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the
respondent-corporation-acquiring body. It is submitted that the
petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold. It is stated that in
1306WP4631.16-Judgment 4/6
the previous petition the petitioner had sought a direction against the
respondents to restore the possession of the land to the petitioner. It is
submitted that the said writ petition was dismissed and the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer has attained finality. It is
submitted that when the petitioner had earlier sought for the
restoration of the possession of the land, the petitioner cannot claim
that the possession of the land is not lost by him and that he would be
entitled to a declaration in view of the provisions of section 24(2) of the
Act of 2013.
4. We are inclined to accept the objection raised on behalf of
the respondents. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and
reprobate. In the previous petition filed by the petitioner in the year
2013 i.e. Writ Petition No.3926 of 2013, which we had called for
perusal, the petitioner had clearly averred in paragraph No.10 that the
respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra had taken the possession of the
land of the petitioner on 22/05/1995. It is further averred in the said
paragraph that it would therefore be necessary to direct the State
Government to restore the possession of the acquired land to the
petitioner. Not only has the petitioner admitted that the petitioner had
lost the possession of the land, the petitioner had also mentioned the
date on which he had lost the possession of the land i.e. 22/05/1995.
1306WP4631.16-Judgment 5/6
We are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner that since the possession is not taken as per the provisions of
section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it needs to be held that the
petitioner is still in possession of the land and has not lost the
possession. A lame excuse is put forth by the petitioner, by making an
averment in this writ petition that since the respondents had affixed
iron rods on the boundary wall of the land of the petitioner, the
petitioner was under an impression that the possession of his land was
lost. A further attempt, which is also equally lame, is made on behalf of
the petitioner to point out on the basis of certain communications
exchanged between the State Government and the Corporation that the
petitioner had not lost the possession of his land. We find that after the
Act of 2013 came into force, the petitioner has tried to make the last
attempt to ensure that the land is restored back to him, by taking
recourse to the provisions of section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, though
he has lost the possession of the land. As per the averment in the
previous petition filed by the petitioner, he has lost the possession of the
land in the year 1995. We had dismissed Writ Petition No.3926 of 2013.
The petitioner could not have filed the instant petition for a declaration
that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner
have lapsed after the dismissal of the previous writ petition. The
petitioner has clearly abused the process of the court by filing the
1306WP4631.16-Judgment 6/6
present writ petition. Though the petitioner had lost the possession of
the acquired land more than 20 years earlier, the present writ petition is
filed with a view to make a last attempt to secure the possession of the
land, by making a statement pertaining to the possession of the land
that is contrary to the statement made by the petitioner in the earlier
petition.
In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the writ petition with
costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
