Bombay High Court
Sachin Ananda Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 March, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9941 OF 2016
1. Sachin s/o Ananda Patil,
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Agri.,
2. Bhagwan s/o Sahebrao Badgujar,
Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agri.,
3. Atmaram s/o Kukudu Patil,
Age : 55 years, Occu.: Agri.,
4. Bhagwan s/o Jagannath Patil,
Age : 58 years, Occu.: Agri.,
5. Rajdhar s/o Ramdas Badgujar,
Age : 70 years, Occu.: Agri,
6. Sambhaji s/o Devidas Patil,
Age : 29 years, Occu.: Agri.,
7. Bhagwat s/o Tulshiram Patil,
Age : 40 years, Occu.: Agri.,
8. Ramdas s/o Sambhu Patil,
Age : 72 years, Occu.: Agri.,
9. Maharu s/o Chaitraram Patil,
Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agri.,
10. Fulchand s/o Mahadu Patil,
Age : 52 years, Occu.: Agri.,
All r/o. Samaner, Tq. Pachora,
District Jalgaon ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jalgaon (3) Upper Tapi Project,
Hatnoor, District Jalgaon
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 01:07:57 :::
2 wp9941-2016
3. The Executive Engineer,
Building and Construction
(P.W.D.) Department, Jalgaon
District Jalgaon
4. The Desk Officer (Road-3),
Building and Construction
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32 ..RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for the Petitioners
Smt.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondents/State
----
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Reserved On : 27th FEBRUARY, 2017
Pronounced On: 1st MARCH, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
A.G.P. representing the respondents, heard finally.
2. The admitted facts, in brief, are that the
lands of the petitioners came to be acquired by
respondent no.3 - Executive Engineer, Building and
Construction (P.W.) Department, Jalgaon, for
construction of a bridge at village Samner, Taluka
3 wp9941-2016
Pachora, District Jalgaon, on Jalgaon to Pachora Road.
Possession of the lands of the petitioners was taken by
private negotiations on 12.06.1997. However, the notice
under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
("the Act of 1894", for short) was issued on 11.01.2013.
The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was
made on 26.02.2013. The public notice under Section 9(1)
and (2) was given on 24.05.2013. The Award under Section
11 of the Act of 1894 came to be passed on 05.12.2013,
however, the amount of compensation was not paid to the
petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed Writ
Petition No.8495 of 2015, seeking directions against
respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation to them. This
Court passed an order on 16.12.2015 and directed the
said respondents to deposit the amount payable to the
petitioners under the Award dated 05.12.2013, together
with interest and other benefits in this Court, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of the said Award.
Accordingly, the said respondents deposited amount of
compensation payable to the petitioners in this Court,
which was ultimately received by them on 04.03.2016.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the
4 wp9941-2016
petitioners, since the amount of compensation was not
paid to the petitioners on or before the date of
commencement (i.e. 01.01.2014) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act of
2013", for short), in view of the proviso given under
sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the
petitioners are entitled to get compensation as per the
provisions of the Act of 2013. In support of this
contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs.
Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and others, 2014 (4) Mh.L.J,
(S.C.) 566 = (2014) 3 SCC 183.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P., relying
on the contentions raised in the reply filed on behalf
of respondent no.2- Special Land Acquisition Officer,
submits that since the Award in respect of lands of the
petitioners has not been passed under Section 11 of the
Act of 1894, five years or more prior to the
commencement of the Act of 2013 and since possession of
the lands of the petitioners has been taken in the year
1997 and the amount of compensation also has been paid
5 wp9941-2016
to them, the proviso under sub-section (2) of Section 24
of the Act of 2013 would not apply to the facts of the
present petition and petitioners would not be entitled
to get compensation in accordance with the provisions of
the Act of 2013. The learned A.G.P. relying on the
judgment in the case of Babasaheb Eknath Wakchaure and
others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2017(1)
Mh.L.J. 925, prays that the Writ Petition may be
dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival contentions of the
parties with reference to the documents produced on
record. In our opinion, the issue involved in this
petition is no more res integra, in view of the Full
Bench judgment of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in
Dayaram Bhondu Koche and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others, 2017(1) Mh.L.J. 487, wherein the
following question was framed for consideration;
"Whether proviso to Section 24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 is also applicable to the Awards
which are covered under Clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013?".
6 wp9941-2016
After considering the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court answered the above referred question in the
following words:-
"For the reasons to follow, we answer the
question by holding that the proviso to section
24 of the 2013 Act is also applicable to the
awards which are covered under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of section 24 of the 2013 Act.
Resultantly, we hold that all such
beneficiaries, whose names are specified in
notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and in case of which the
awards have been passed within a period of five
years prior to the date of commencement of the
2013 Act and wherein the compensation as
construed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another
vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and others,
2014(4) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 566 = (2014) 3 SCC 183,
is not paid to the majority of the
beneficiaries would also be entitled to the
compensation as per the 2013 Act."
6. Here, reference may conveniently be made to the
judgment in the case of Dilip Narayan Chaudhari & Ors.
Vs. State of Maharashtra, Water Resources Department &
Ors., 2016 (1) LJSOFT 71 = 2016 (3) ALL MR 890, wherein
the facts were that the Award under Section 11 of the
7 wp9941-2016
Act of 1894 was passed on 17.07.2013, the possession of
the lands subject matter of the Award was not taken over
by the acquiring body. The majority of the petitioners
therein had not been paid the amount of compensation.
Therefore, the petitioners therein had claimed that in
view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of
2013, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to
have lapsed. This Court considered the rival contentions
in detail with reference to the provisions of Section 24
of the Act of 2013 and held that the acquisition
proceedings would not be deemed to have lapsed and the
petitioners would be entitled to get compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. This
Court observed in para 31 as under:
"31. .... ........
In view of the recent pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as quoted above,
the argument advanced by learned Assistant
Government Pleader that the scope of proviso
shall have to be read in the context of sub-
section (2) of Section 24; and that it
applies only in a case where award has been
declared five years or more prior to the
enforcement of Act of 2013, is not a sound
proposition. As has been held by the Hon'ble
8 wp9941-2016
the Supreme Court, the proviso has no effect
so as to exclude from main enactment by
implication, which clearly falls within its
express terms and as such, contention of the
State that the proviso shall have to be read
as excepting something out of the provisions
of sub-section (2) of Section 24, does not
deserve acceptance. Considering the language
of the proviso, it has to be construed as a
stand alone proviso independent of sub-
section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of
2013."
7. In the present case, though possession of the
lands of the petitioners was taken in the year 1997, the
amount of compensation was not paid to them as
contemplated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation and Another (supra), on or
prior to commencement of the Act of 2013, the subsequent
payment to the petitioners on 04.03.2016, would have no
adverse affect on the right of the petitioners to claim
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Act of 2013.
8. The judgment in the case of Babasaheb Eknath
Wakchaure and others (supra), cited by the learned
9 wp9941-2016
A.G.P. has no bearing at all on the facts of the present
case. Since the Award in that case was passed on
10.03.1997, in that case ultimately this Court held and
declared that the land acquisition proceedings in
respect of the lands of the petitioners therein stood
lapsed. This judgment is of no help to the respondents
to deny the claim of the petitioners.
9. In the result, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
(i) The respondents are directed to determine and
pay the amount of compensation with interest, as
admissible under the law, to the petitioners in
accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within a
period of six months from today.
(ii) The amount of compensation that has already
been paid to the petitioners shall be adjusted towards
the amount payable to them in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 2013.
10 wp9941-2016
(iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms and
the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [T.V. NALAWADE]
JUDGE JUDGE
mandawgad_sa/wp9941-2016
