Shri. Rangnath Murlidhar Pandit vs The State Of Maharashtra Thorugh ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6065 Bom

                                               1   / 3                           25-WP-8082-2018.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 8082 OF 2018
Rangnath Murlidhar Pandit                                                       ...     Petitioner
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and others ...                       Respondents
                                                .........
Mr. S.R. Nargolkar alongwith Mr. A.B. Kadam for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for the State.
                                      .........
                                         CORAM :          S.J. KATHAWALLA AND
                                                          SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

                                         DATED :          APRIL 5, 2021.

P.C. :-

1. By the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner inter-alia seeks the following

reliefs :

"(a) Rule be issued, records and proceedings be called for.

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the acquisition proceedings in respect of Gat No.612, admeasuring 1 Hectare 62 Ares, situated at Mouje - Kasari, Taluka: Shirur, District - Pune, have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013.

2. Mr. Shailesh Sharad Suryavanshi, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)

No.19, Pune has fled an Afdavit-in-Reply dated 19th August, 2017 in the above Writ

Kanchan P Dhuri

2 / 3 25-WP-8082-2018.odt

Petition, wherein he has submitted as follows :

2.1 That the land of the Petitioner bearing Gat No.612, admeasuring 1

Hectare 62 Ares, situated at Mouje - Kasari, Taluka: Shirur, District - Pune was

acquired by an award dated 26th December, 1988.

2.2 That the issue raised by the Petitioner that the possession of the

Petitioner's land is not obtained from the Petitioner and the amount of compensation

is not paid to him, and therefore the acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013, is incorrect.

2.3 That the possession of the subject land is voluntarily handed over to the

State-authorities by the Petitioner and/or his representatives. Pursuant thereto a

possession panchanama dated 04.02.1989 was drawn.

2.4 That after passing the above mentioned award the then SLAO disbursed

the amount of compensation to the Petitioner vide cheque no. 254977 dated

06.02.1989. The said payment has been accepted by the Petitioner and/or his

representatives.

2.5 That in view of the above provisions, the Petitioner cannot seek to

invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. The Petitioner through his Advocate admits that the authority has taken

Kanchan P Dhuri

3 / 3 25-WP-8082-2018.odt

symbolic possession of the acquired land and the compensation is deposited with the

Revenue Department as set out in the Government Afdavit dated 19th August, 2017.

4. The Supreme Court in its Judgment in the case of Indore Development

Authority vs. Manoharlal and others1, has inter-alia held as under :

"366.5 In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open for him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept the compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.7 The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report /memorandum. Once the award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State; there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2)."

5. In view of the above, the question of granting reliefs as sought by the

Petitioner does not arise and the above Writ Petition is disposed of as dismissed.

( SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. )                                      ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )




1    (2020) 8 SCC 129


Kanchan P Dhuri