Godavari Marathwada Irrigation ... vs Mahadeo Goroba Lakal And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 9108 Bom

                                          *1*                          901wp1056o08


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 1056 OF 2008

Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation Limited.
Through its Executive Engineer,
Osmanabad Irrigation Division,
Osmanabad.
                                        ...PETITIONER

      -VERSUS-

1     Mahadeo s/o Goroba Lakal,
      Age : 45 years,
      Occupation : Agriculturist,
      R/o Mulewadi, 
      Taluka and District Osmanabad.

2     Raosaheb Dagdu Lakal,
      Age : 60 years, 
      Occupation : Agriculturist,
      R/o as above.

3     Haribhau s/o Manik Lakal,
      Age : 50 years, 
      Occupation : Agriculturist,
      R/o as above.

4     Prabhu s/o Mohan Lomte,
      Age : 65 years, 
      Occupation : Agriculturist,
      R/o as above.

5     Goroba s/o Namdeo Lakal,
      Age : 70 years, 
      Occupation : Agriculturist,
      R/o as above.

6     Kundalik s/o Namdeo Lakal,
      Age : 75 years, 




    ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:39:51 :::
                                      *2*                          901wp1056o08


       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

7      Sukhdeo s/o Raoji Lomte,
       died through L.Rs. 
       through GPA
       Pratap s/o Sukhdeo Lomte,
       Age : 70 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

8      Bhanudas Bajirao Bhutekar,
       Age : 75 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

9      Chandar s/o Raoji Lomte,
       died through L.Rs.
       Through GPA
       Dattu Chandar Lomte,
       Age : 55 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

10     Gajendar Pandhari Lomte,
       Age : 35 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

11     Bhima Vishwanath Lomte,
       Age : 60 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

12     Goroba s/o Rama Lomte,
       Age : 75 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

13     Dattu s/o Bhau Salunke,
       died through L.Rs.
       Through GPA
       Dnyandeo Dattu Salunke,




     ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017          ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:39:51 :::
                                             *3*                          901wp1056o08


       Age : 35 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.
       (R/13 dismissed as per 
       Registrar (Judicial) order
       dated 09.02.2009).

14     Gurunath Bhau Salunke,
       Age : 65 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

15     Sahebrao Maruti Salunke,
       died through L.Rs.
       Through GPA
       Baliram Sahebrao Salunke,
       Age : 35 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

16     Mahada Maruti Salunke,
       Age : 55 years, 
       Occupation : Agriculturist,
       R/o as above.

17     The State of Maharashtra.
       Through the Secretary,
       Irrigation Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

18     Special Land Acquisition Officer,
       P.T. and MIW No.1, Osmanabad.

19     District Collector,
       Osmanabad.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS



                                      WITH 
                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2011 
                                       IN 
                         WRIT PETITION NO.1056 OF 2008




     ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:39:51 :::
                                                       *4*                           901wp1056o08




                     MAHADEO GOROBA LAKAL AND OTHERS.
                                   -VERSUS-
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.

                                       ...
                 Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri S G Sangle. 
        AGP for Respondent Nos.17, 18 and 19 : Smt.Vaishali Chaudhari.
                                       ...

                                        CORAM:  RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                         AND
                                                  SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE :- 28th November, 2017

Oral Judgment :

1 The Petitioner/ Acquiring Body is aggrieved by the order

dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad, by

which, rental compensation has been awarded to Respondent Nos.1 to 16,

who were the original Claimants.

2 The prayers put forth by the Petitioner in paragraph 18-C and

18-D read as under:-

"(C) By appropriate writ or order under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad in Case No.2006/RB/Desk-3/DRL/ CR-102, be quashed and set aside.

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad in Case No.2006/RB/Desk-3/DRL/ CR-102, be stayed in the interest of justice."

3 We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

*5* 901wp1056o08

for the Petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.17, 18

and 19. Despite service of court notice, Respondent Nos.1 to 16 have not

chosen to enter an appearance either in person or through an Advocate.

4 It is seriously contended by the Petitioner that the land at

issue was never taken possession of before the notification under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 11.03.1993. The

Petitioner has consistently taken the stand, before every authority

including the proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer as

well as in reference proceedings under Section 18 that, the possession of

the acquired land was never taken before the issuance of the notification

under Section 4.

5 It is further submitted that unless the possession is taken prior

to the issuance of the notification under Section 4, there is no question of

paying rental compensation to the original Claimants, whose land has

been acquired.

6 In principle, we have no reason to doubt the submissions of

the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the issue of eligibility for rental

compensation. The issue before us is as to when was the possession of the

land taken and when was the notification under Section 4 issued.

7 The original Claimants were before this Court in a group of

matters in Writ Petition No.4933/2006 and connected petitions on the

issue of rental compensation. By order dated 08.08.2006, this Court

*6* 901wp1056o08

directed the competent authority, which is the Additional Collector, to

decide the said issue on it's own merits and in accordance with law.

8 The serious contention of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner

had submitted a detailed reply by way of a written statement before the

Additional Collector. It was specifically stated that Section 4 notification

was issued on 11.03.1993 and the land was not taken possession of until

the award was pronounced on 26.02.1999.

9 We have considered the impugned order dated 07.12.2006 in

the light of the submissions of the Petitioner. The original Claimants had

contended that there was private negotiation between the parties, which

was documented and the Petitioner took possession of the land on

15.06.1992. There is no dispute about the date of the Section 4

notification which is 11.03.1993 and the date of the award, which is

26.02.1999.

10 We find that the competent authority has relied upon the

award dated 26.02.1999 and based on the award, it has concluded that

the Petitioner had submitted Annexure-E to the award before the

competent authority, which indicated that the date of taking possession of

the land pursuant to the private negotiation is 15.06.1992. By the

impugned order, the competent authority has then dealt with the further

contentions of the litigating sides and has finally arrived at a conclusion

that the date of taking possession of the land pursuant to the private

*7* 901wp1056o08

negotiation has been concluded to be 15.06.1992 by the award.

11 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has made a strenuous

effort in contending that the observation of the Special Land Acquisition

Officer in the award dated 26.02.1999, insofar as the date of taking

possession of the land is concerned, is a perverse finding. It is contended

that the said finding should be quashed and set aside by this Court. It is

further contended that as the Acquiring Body cannot assail the award

before any court, it has accepted the award, but that would not mean that

the Acquiring Body agrees with the conclusions in the award.

12 We find from the proceedings in hand that the award dated

26.02.1999 is not the subject matter of challenge. We are not called upon

to go into the finding on facts given by the competent authority while

delivering the award. We also do not find any averment in the memo of

the petition that the date of possession pursuant to the private negotiation

being 15.06.1992 has been challenged. So to say that we do not find any

averment in the memo of the petition that the said conclusion of the

competent authority about the date of possession is erroneous or perverse

or needs to be set aside.

13 Considering the above and when the finding on facts arrived

at by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award has not been

assailed, we cannot go into this aspect suo motu or on the basis of the oral

submissions of the Petitioner.

                                                               *8*                           901wp1056o08


                 14              In the light of the above, we do not find that the conclusions 

in the impugned order based on the finding on facts could be termed as

being perverse or erroneous. This Writ Petition being devoid of merit is,

therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

15 Needless to state, the amount deposited in this Court by the

Petitioner can be withdrawn by the original Claimants depending upon

their individual shares, along with accrued interest.

16 In the light of the above, the pending Civil Application filed

by the original Claimants seeking leave to withdraw the rental

compensation, stands disposed of.

kps (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)