Rambhau S/O Narayan Tejankar And ... vs The State Of Maha. Thr Principal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2105 Bom

                                                                         wp.3773.09+

                                       1



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                        ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3773/2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3774/2009

WRIT PETITION NO. 3773/2009

1) Rambhau s/o Narayan Tejankar Aged about 60 years, occu: Agriculturist

2) Tukaram s/o Durga Kalal Aged about 65 years, occu: Agriculturist

3) Gulabrao s/o narayan Tejankar Aged about 63 years, occu: Agriculturist

4) Madhaorao s/o Syamrao Tejankar Aged about 55 years, occu: Agriculturist

5) Dhananjay s/o Sahebrao Tejankar Aged about 30 years, occu: Agriculturist

6) Bhikaji s/o Bhaurao Tejankar Aged about 45 years, occu: Agriculturist

7) Asaram s/o Laxman Chougule Aged about 50 years, occu: Agriculturist

8) Narayan s/o Bhaurao Tejankar Aged about 40 years, occu: Agriculturist

9) Ashru s/o Laxman Kusalkar Aged about 70 years, occu: Agriculturist

10) Pralhad s/o Tukaram Tejankar Aged about 52 years, occu: Agriculturist

wp.3773.09+

11) Kundlik s/o Laxman Kalal Aged about 55 years, occu: Agriculturist

12) Kasabai Shamrao Tejalkar Aged about 70 years, occu: Agriculturist

All are R/o Wadgaon Tejan Tq.Lonar, Dist.Buldana. ..PETITIONERS

v e r s u s

1) The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Forest Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2)       The Under Secretary
         Revenue and  Forest Department
         Mantralaya, Mumbai 

3)       The Collector, Buldana. 

4)       The Special Land Acquisition Officer 
         Medium  Irrigation Works  
         (MIW)  Buldhana. 

5)       The Tahsildar, Lonar, Dist.Buldana,

6)       Shri B.R.Gavit 
         The Under Secretary, 
         Revenue and Forest Department,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

7)       The  Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
         Sinchan Seva Bhawan 
         Civil Lines, Nagpur 
         Through Executive Director. 





                                                                         wp.3773.09+





8)      The Executive Engineer, 
        Buldana  Irrigation Division, 
        Buldana.                                               ...RESPONDENTS


WRIT PETITION NO. 3774/2009

1)      Mohammad Jamir Sheikh Hanif 

Aged about 47 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Sultanpur ,Tq.Lonar, Dist. Buldana.

2) Sheikh Rashid Sheikh Nahif Aged about 57 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Sultanpur, Tq.Lonar Dist. Buldana.

3) Prakash s/o Narayan Sirsath Aged about 40 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Pardi Sirsath Tq.Lonar Dist. Buldana.

4) Arun s/o Narayan Sirsath Aged about 30 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Pardi Sirsath, Tq.Lonar Dist. Buldana.

5) Santosh s/o Gulab Sirsath Aged about 25years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Pardi Sirsath Tq.Lonar Dist. Buldana.

6) Narayan s/o Madhaorao Sirsath Aged about 65 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Pardi Sirsath, Tq.Lonar Dist. Buldana.

7) Narayan s/o Bhaurao Tejankar Aged about 65 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Wadgaon Tejan, Tq.Lonar Dist. Buldana.

8) Asnil Anandrao Gaware Aged about 42 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Pardi Sirsath, Tq.Lonar Dist. Buldana. ..PETITIONERS

wp.3773.09+

v e r s u s

1) The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Forest Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2)        The Under Secretary
          Revenue and  Forest Department
          Mantralaya, Mumbai 

3)        The Collector, Buldana. 

4)        The Special Land Acquisition Officer 
          Medium  Irrigation Works  
          (MIW)  Buldhana. 

5)        The Tahsildar, Lonar, Dist.Buldana,

6)        Shri B.R.Gavit 
          The Under Secretary, 
          Revenue and Forest Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

7)        The Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
          Sinchan Seva Bhawan 
          Civil Lines, Nagpur 
          Through Executive Director. 

8)        The Executive Engineer, 
          Buldana  Irrigation Division, 
          Buldana.                                                                          ...RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. F.T. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioners Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 6 Shri Godbole, Adv.h/for Mr. S.G.Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent no.7-VIDC ...........................................................................................................................

                                                                                    wp.3773.09+





                                          CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                        MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                               . 
                                         DATED :      2  May, 2017
                                                        nd

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Leave is granted to amend the prayer clause in both the petitions. The

amendment should be carried out forthwith.

By these petitions, initially, the petitioners had challenged the

communication of the respondent no.2-Revenue and Forests Department,

dated 6.8.2009, informing the petitioners that since the award in the land

acquisition proceedings initiated for the acquisition of the land of the

petitioners is passed, the proceedings cannot be closed and the land of the

petitioners cannot be released under section 48 of the land Acquisition Act,

1894. In view of the coming into force the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013,

the petitioners have amended the Writ Petitions and have sought a declaration

that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners

have lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.

The land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired by the State

Government for the rehabilitation of the persons affected by Borkhedi Minor

Irrigation Tank Project. The Section 6 notification was issued on 12.04.2007.

The petitioners had filed an application under section 48 of the Act seeking

wp.3773.09+

withdrawal from the acquisition proceedings. On 06.08.2009, the petitioners

were informed that since an award was passed in the land acquisition

proceedings pertaining to the land of the petitioners on 02.06.2008, an order

under section 48 of the Act of 1894 could not have been passed in favour of

the petitioners. The petitioners had challenged the said order and in view of

the coming into force of the Act of 2013, by amending the Writ Petition, have

sought a declaration that the reservation of the land of the petitioners have

lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.

Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submitted

that it would be necessary to declare, in the circumstances of the case that the

land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners have

lapsed, in view of the coming into force of the Act of 2013. It is stated that

under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, there would be a lapsing of the

acquisition proceedings as the award in this case was passed on 02.06.2008,

ie, more than five years before the coming into force of the Act of 2013 and

the State Government has neither taken the possession of the land from the

petitioners nor has paid the compensation to them. It is stated that since the

award is passed more than five years before the coming into force of the Act of

2013 and since the respondents have not taken the possession of the lands

and have also not paid the compensation to the petitioners and/or have not

deposited the same in the Civil Court, the proceedings for the acquisition of

wp.3773.09+

the land of the petitioners have lapsed, in view of the provisions of Section

24(2) of the Act of 2013.

Mrs. Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on

behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 states on instructions from the Special

Land Acquisition Officer that the possession of the land is still with the

petitioners and the respondents have neither paid the compensation to the

petitioners nor is the same deposited in the Civil Court. It is however stated

that the lands of the petitioners are required by the State Government as the

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation have communicated to the State

Government that the lands could be acquired under the Act of 2013. It is

stated that the possession of the lands could not be secured as this Court had

restrained the respondents from taking possession of the lands of the

petitioners. It is submitted that though the Special Land Acquisition Officer

had offered the compensation to the petitioners, the petitioners have not

accepted the same.

The learned counsel for the VIDC submitted that the VIDC had tendered

the compensation payable to the petitioners, to the Special Land Acquisition

Officer on 13.08.2008 and there is no delay on the part of the VIDC, in

paying the compensation.

On a reading of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013,

wp.3773.09+

the declaration as sought by the petitioners needs to be granted. Admittedly,

the award was passed on 02.06.2008 and the Act of 2013 has came into

force on 01.01.2014. Though the award was passed more than five years

before the coming into force of the Act of 2013, the respondents have

admittedly not paid the compensation to the petitioners and have also not

deposited the same in the Civil Court. Since there was stay operating in favour

of the petitioners, the possession of the lands of the petitioners is not taken

by the respondents. In any case, since the respondents have not paid the

compensation to the petitioners till date and have also not deposited the same

in the Civil Court, in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013,

it would be necessary to declare that the land acquisition proceedings in

respect of the land of the petitioners have lapsed. Merely because the

compensation is paid by the acquiring body to the Special Land Acquisition

Officer, it cannot be said that the compensation is paid to the petitioners. If the

Special Land Acquisition officer had offered the compensation to the

petitioners and the petitioners had refused to accept the same, it was the duty

of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and/or the State Government to deposit

the amount of compensation in the Civil Court as per the provisions of the Act

of 1894. However this was not done and admittedly, the compensation is not

paid to the petitioners till date.

wp.3773.09+

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, both the Writ Petitions are allowed.

It is hereby declared that the proceedings in respect of the land of the

petitioners have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of

2013.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

                JUDGE                                     JUDGE

sahare