Bombay High Court
The Godawarimarathwada ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 November, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-8631-09+1.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B0MBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8631 OF 2009
1. The Godawari Marathwada Irrigation
Development Corporation, having its
Office at 'Sinchan Bhawan',Jalna Road,
Aurangabad, through the Executive
Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal
Division, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad .. Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
the Secretary, Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32,
2. The Collector,
Collector Office, Aurangabad
3. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Jaikwadi Project No. 2,
Collector Office, Aurangabad
4. Shri Maniksing Kisansing Pardeshi,
Age : 65 years, occup. Agril.,
R/o Opp. Somani Building,
Station Road, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad
5. The General Manager,
District Industrial Center,
Railway Station, MIDC,
Aurangabad. .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 00:28:50 :::
2 WP-8631-09+1.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10436 OF 2010
1. Shri Maniksisng Kisansing Pardeshi
Age-68 years, occup. Agril.,
R/o Opp. Somani Building,
Station Road, Vaijapur,
Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Collector,
Collector Office, Aurangabad
3. The S. L. A. O.
Jaikwadi Project No. II,
Collector Office, Aurangabad
4. The Executive Engineer,
Nandur Madhemeshwar Cannel,
Division, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
----
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, Advocate for petitioner in writ petition
no. 8631 of 2009 and respondent no. 4 in writ petition no.
10436 of 2010
Mr. S. N. Morampalle, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents no. 1 to 3 in both writ petitions
Mr. Nandakishor J. Pahune Patil, Advocate for respondent no.
4 in writ petition no. 8631 of 2009 and petitioner in writ
petition no. 10436 of 2010
----
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 00:28:50 :::
3 WP-8631-09+1.doc
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 7th November, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
Heard learned counsel Mr. Sonpawale appearing on
behalf of Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation (GMIDC), petitioner in writ petition no. 8631 of
2009, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Morampalle
for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Mr. N. J. Pahune Patil, learned
Counsel for respondent no. 4. Respondent no.4 has also filed
writ petition no. 10436 of 2010 seeking direction for payment
of interest pursuant to section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and a further direction for payment of interest over
interest amount under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
02. Writ petition no. 8631 of 2009 proceeds on the footing
that the land of respondent no. 4 had once been acquired in
1982 for District Industrial Centre and an award had been
passed in the same and the compensation amount had also
been received by respondent no. 4. It is the case of the
4 WP-8631-09+1.doc
petitioner, the revenue record had been prepared pursuant
to acquisition of land and the District Industrial Centre was
being shown as owner in occupation of land survey no.24/2/1.
3. Subsequently around 1994, another acquisition
proceedings were proceeded with for Narangi Irrigation
Project acquiring various lands for submergence including
land bearing survey number 24/2/1. GMIDC pursuant to the
award passed in the said land acquisition proceedings had
deposited amount with Special Land Acquisition Officer in
respect of said land bearing survey no. 24/2/1. In the
circumstances, having regard to revenue record, a notice
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued to
District Industrial Centre and subsequent land acquisition
proceedings were also proceeded with accordingly and award
in the same came to be passed.
4. It appears to be the case of the petitioner that
respondent no. 4 (petitioner in writ petition no. 10436 of
2010) had no concern with land bearing survey no.24/2/1
since his said land had already been acquired way-back in
1982 for District Industrial Centre.
5 WP-8631-09+1.doc
5. Learned counsel Mr. Sonpawale submits that
subsequently, however, respondent no. 4 had moved revenue
authorities and got revenue entries changed and wrongly and
incorrectly started claiming compensation for acquisition of 94
are from land survey number 24/2/1. The said compensation
deposited by petitioner - GMIDC had been wrongly paid upon
correction of revenue entries to respondent no. 4.
6. Mr. Sonpawale submits that once the land was acquired
for District Industrial Centre, respondent no. 4 had lost his
ownership over the same and the land vested in the
Government and subsequently another land acquisition
proceedings had been proceeded with in respect of the said
land. He submits that respondent no. 4 has doubly received
compensation for acquisition of his land which is patently
illegal. He, therefore, submits that interest as claimed by
respondent no. 4 is not at all liable to be paid. On the
contrary, he submits it gives occasion to petitioner - GMIDC
to claim back the land acquisition compensation along with
interest from respondent no. 4.
6 WP-8631-09+1.doc
7. Countering the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
Mr. N. J. Pahune Patil appearing for present respondent no. 4
- petitioner in writ petition no. 10436 of 2010 submits that
while the land acquisition proceedings in 1982 had been in
respect of land bearing survey number 24/2/2 and an award
accordingly had been passed and about 3 hectare and 17 are
land from the said survey number had been acquired.
Thereafter, an error had crept in while recording the event of
acquisition of land as instead of showing acquisition of land
survey number 24/2/2, revenue record erroneously started
showing acquisition of land survey number 24/2/1. He
submits that the land acquired for District Industrial Centre
i.e. survey number 24/2/2 is different from the land acquired
from survey number 24/1/1. He submits, from the two lands,
land acquisition for District Industrial Centre in 1982 and one
in 1994 for Narangi project for submergence are separated by
a long distance. A huge tract of land belonging to respondent
no. 4 from land survey no. 24/2/1 intervenes between the
two lands. Mistake occurring in the revenue record having
been realized by revenue authorities, upon steps being taken
and accordingly the mistake had been rectified in the
7 WP-8631-09+1.doc
proceedings initiated therefor. He submits, in the interregnum,
respondent no. 4 had been deprived of receipt of legitimate
compensation in respect of acquisition of 94 aar portion from
land survey number 24/2/1. The amount of compensation for
the said area of 94 are came to be paid only upon rectification
of record which took about a decade from initiation of land
acquisition proceedings i.e. from 1994 to 2006.
8. Mr. Pahune Patil refers to affidavit in reply filed on behalf
of State by respondent no. 3 referring to the error in
maintaining revenue record and its subsequent correction and
further emphasizes that affidavit categorically clarifies and
highlights the position that acquisition of land in 1982 did not
pertain at all to land survey number 24/2/1. He submits that
it is due to the error in maintenance of record by revenue
authorities, respondent no. 4 has been deprived of his
legitimate entitlement to receive compensation for quite a
long time and, therefore, he had made a demand to the
authorities, for payment of interest pursuant to section 34 of
the Land Acquisition Act which has not been considered. As
such, Respondent no.4's request for directions to authorities
concerned for consideration of and decision on respondent no.
8 WP-8631-09+1.doc
4's application for payment of interest had been granted after
the high court had directed to decide the application for
interest filed by respondent no. 4 and accordingly under
impugned order the same has been decided holding
respondent no. 4 to be entitled to interest pursuant to section
34 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter GMIDC is before
this court under writ petition no. 8631 OF 2009. He submits,
in the circumstances, having regard to the aforesaid factual
position, order passed holding respondent no. 4 entitled to
interest can seldom be faulted with.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Morampalle
draws attention to affidavit in reply filed by respondent no. 3 -
Deputy Collector. He refers to paragraphs no. 5, 6, 7 and 8
of the same and submits that averments therein make the
factual position amply clear. In the circumstances, impugned
order passed may not be faulted with on legal aspects.
However, he goes on to submit that looking at the laxity of
respondent no. 4 in having correction made in the revenue
record, respondent no. 4 may not be said to be legitimately
claiming interest for the entire period pursuant to section 34
of the Act. He submits that respondent no. 4 for his laxity,
9 WP-8631-09+1.doc
shall have to suffer and submits that he leaves rest of the
things to the discretion of this court.
10. Having regard to aforesaid submissions, it would be
worthwhile to refer to and reproduce contents from
paragraphs no. 5 to 9 of the affidavit in reply filed by
respondent no. 3, reading thus;
'' 5. I respectfully submit that, petitioner thereafter, filed
proceeding before the S.D.O. Vaijapur for correction of 7/12 extract
of survey No. 24/2/1. The S.D.O. Called the report of Tehsildar,
Vaijapur in respect of mutation entry. As the same this office was
also called report of Tehsildar on the same point. The Tehsildar
submitted his report to this office on 10/08/2005 stating that, the
mutation entry no. 4086 is wrongly recorded in the 7/12 extract of
the survey no. 24/2/1, it ought to have been recorded in 7/12 extract
of survey no. 24/2/2 which is owned by Hiralal Kisansingh who is a
brother of Maniksingh Kisansingh. In the said report the Tahsildar
also mentioned that, the land owner of survey no. 24/2/2 Hiralal
also admitted this fact that his land from survey No. 24/2/2 is
acquired for D.I.C. and not the land of maniksing from 24/2/1.
6. I respectfully submits that, meanwhile this office was also
called explanation from the office of Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Aurangabad whether the land from survey no. 24/2/1 is
acquired by the award No. 33/82 for D.I.C. or not ? By later Dtd.
27/07/2005, the SLAO have informed to this office that, the land
survey no. 24/2/1 have not been acquired by their office by award
No. 33/82 for DIC, nor paid any compensation for this land. The
10 WP-8631-09+1.doc
copy of this letter Dtd. 27/07/2005 is annexed herewith and marked
as "EXHIBIT R-3" for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.
7. I respectfully submits that, by considering the record, the
S.D.O. Allowed the appeal of the present respondent no. 4 and
directed to correct 7/12 extract of survey no. 24/2/1. The copy of
order passed by S.D.O. is already on record at page no. 66 of the
reply filed by Resp. No. 4. Accordingly 7/12 extract is corrected.
The copy of this report by Tehsildar dtd. 10/08/2005 is annexed
herewith and marked as "EXHIBIT R-4" for kind perusal of the
Hon'ble High Court.
8. I respectfully submit that, as per the Order of S.D.O.,
Tahsildar by passing mutation entry No. 14268 corrected the 7/12
extract of survey No. 24/2/1. Then after getting corrected 7/12
extract and getting all the reports, this office got it confirmed that,
the land survey no. 24/2/1 was never acquired hence before for
D.I.C., The then SLAO did a spot visit and get it reconfirm that this
94 R land is acquired from the Western side of the land survey no.
24/2/1, whereas the D.I.C have acquired the land up to survey no.
24/2/1 which is situated at the Eastern side of the suit land survey
no. 24/2/1. Thus in between the land acquired by D.I.C. and land
acquired for Narangi project, there is a remaining land of the
present respondent No. 4. There is no any double acquisition in
respect of the suit land Survey No. 24/2/1. After all these
confirmations this office paid compensation to the present
respondent during pendency of W.P. No. 2555/2006 on 29/06/2006.
I further submit that, during this long period, there was no any stay
of any Court to disburse the compensation amount and nobody was
claimed this compensation amount, except the present respondent
11 WP-8631-09+1.doc
No. 4. After payment of this compensation before The Hon'ble High
Court, the present petitioner also did not raised any objection for
the same though, he was a party to the said proceeding. Copy of
mutation entry No. 14268 is annexed herewith and marked at
"EXHIBIT R-5" for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court.
9. I respectfully submit that, the letter dtd. 27/03/2006
submitted by the then SLAO is seems that, the said letter was
prepared without verifying the office record. Therefore, in the light
of all these documents and facts discussed above, this letter dtd.
27/03/2006 is required to be turned down. The present petitioner
also knew this factual aspect. However, by taking undue benefit of
the recording of mutation entry No. 4086 wrongly on survey no.
24/2/1, the present petitioner was opposing for the payment of
compensation and now opposing for payment of interest to the land
owner. ''
11. In the background of aforesaid factual position, it
appears to be clearly emerging position that land acquired in
1982 for District Industrial Centre, is different piece of land
than 94 are land concerned in 1994 acquisition proceedings.
An error appears to had crept in, in maintaining revenue
record upon acquisition of land in 1982 which continued to be
on record for quite a long time. Upon movement by
respondent no. 4, it appears, compensation in respect of
acquisition of land survey number 24/2/1 had been received
by respondent no. 4 only upon rectification of record in 2006.
12 WP-8631-09+1.doc
12. Looking at the facts as would emerge from the affidavit
in reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 and having regard
to sequence of events, claim of petitioner does not appear to
carry any force as the land acquired for the District Industrial
Centre was not from land bearing survey number 24/2/1. In
the circumstances, it does not appear to be a case wherein
fault can be found with the order impugned in present writ
petition no. 8631 of 2009. The petitioner - GMIDC has
disputed the claim of respondent no. 4 for interest.
13. Writ petition no. 8631 of 2009, as such, is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
14. Writ petition no.10436 of 2010, in view of dismissal of
writ petition no.8631 of 2009, is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (B) and is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.
15. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL) (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pnd
