Shri. Haribhau Tatyaba Kanchan vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6067 Bom

                                              1     / 4                         21-WP-11457-2016.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 11457 OF 2016
Haribhau Tatyaba Kanchan                                                  ...        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. R.S. Pawar, 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.1217/1b [part], admeasuring 1 Hectare 71 Ares, situated at Mouje - Uruli Kanchan, Taluka - Haveli, 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. Respondents may be directed to cancel the entries of lapse acquisition in 7/12 extract of Gat No.1217/1b."

Kanchan P Dhuri

2 / 4 21-WP-11457-2016.odt

2. Ms. Snehal Ravindra Barge, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.19,

Pune has fled an Afdavit-in-Reply dated 20 th October, 2018 in the above Writ

Petition, wherein she has submitted as follows :

2.1 That the land of the Petitioner bearing No.1217 (part) admeasuring 1

Hectare 71 R situated at Uruli Kanchan, Taluka Haveli, District Pune was acquired by

an award being No. LAQ /SR/12/70 dated 11th March, 1981.

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 obtained from the Petitioner

and the name of the acquiring body i.e. Collector, Pune has been entered into the

record of rights of the said land by making Mutation Entry No.5384 which was

certifed on 6th April, 1997.

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

the amount of compensation to some of the land owners. However, the Petitioner or

his predecessor did not come forward to accept the compensation for the reason best

known to them. In fact, the Petitioner was absent when the payment of compensation

was made to interested persons and therefore the amount payable to the Petitioner

Kanchan P Dhuri

3 / 4 21-WP-11457-2016.odt

towards the compensation is deposited in R.D. Account of Haveli Sub Treasury on

10th June, 1981 which is an account dedicated for payment of compensation in the said

land acquisition proceeding.

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

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

Revenue Department on 10th June, 1981 as set out in the Government Afdavit dated

20th October, 2018.

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)."

1     (2020) 8 SCC 129


Kanchan P Dhuri


                                        4   / 4                       21-WP-11457-2016.odt

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. )




Kanchan P Dhuri