Bombay High Court
Suresh Maruti Nilakh vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 5 April, 2021
Bench: S.J. Kathawalla, Surendra Pandharinath Tavade
1 / 3 WP-14160-2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14160 OF 2016
Suresh Maruti Nilakh ... 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. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.
2. 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.399/2,
admeasuring 0 Hectare 56.05 Ares, situated at Mouje - Mukhai, 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. Respondents may be directed to cancel
the entries of lapse acquisition in 7/12 extract of Gat No.399/2. Respondent
Nos. 2, 6 and 7 may be further directed to restore names of original owners of
Gat No. 399/2 area 56.5 R in 7/12 extract at the time of acquisition
Kanchan P Dhuri
2 / 3 WP-14160-2016.odt
proceedings."
3. Mr. Dattatraya Babanrao Kavitake, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)
No.17, Pune has fled an Afdavit-in-Reply dated 09 th March, 2017 in the above Writ
Petition, wherein he has submitted as follows :
3.1 That the land of the Petitioner bearing Gat No.1217/1b [part],
admeasuring 1 Hectare 71 Ares, situated at Mouje - Uruli Kanchan, Taluka - Haveli,
District - Pune was acquired by an award dated 11th March, 1981.
3.2 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.
3.3 That the possession of the subject land is obtained from the Petitioner
pursuant to issuance of a notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. By the said
notice, the land owner was called upon to handover possession of the land and accept
compensation on 30.05.2003.
3.4 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
Kanchan P Dhuri
3 / 3 WP-14160-2016.odt
was made to interested persons and therefore the amount payable to the Petitioner
towards the compensation could not be paid for want of presence.
3.5 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.
4. The Petitioner through his Advocate admits that the authority has taken
symbolic possession of the acquired land and the compensation was not accepted by
the petitioner when the same was ofered to him.
5. 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)."
6. 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
