Shri. Amol Kaluram Shivarkar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6069 Bom

                                                 1   / 3                           WPST-410-2017.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 410 OF 2017
Amol Kaluram Shivarkar                                                         ...     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.1539, admeasuring 1 Hectare 21 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. Respondents may be directed to cancel the entries of lapse acquisition and rehabilitation in 7/12 extract of Gat No.1539, admeasuring 1 Hectare 21 Ares, and further be directed to restore the position before acquisition proceedings by efecting suitable mutation to reinstate

Kanchan P Dhuri

2 / 3 WPST-410-2017.odt

the names of the original owner.

3. 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

Petition, wherein he has submitted as follows :

3.1 That the land of the Petitioner bearing Gat No.1539, admeasuring 1

Hectare 21 Ares, situated at Mouje - Kasari, Taluka: Shirur, District - Pune was

acquired by an award dated 26th December, 1988.

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 by

way of drawing possession panchanama dated 04.02.1989. This was subsequent to the

petitioner having voluntarily handed over possession of the subject land to the State-

authorities.

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

the amount of compensation to some of the land owners. In the course of the said

disbursal, the petitioner is in receipt of the compensation amount vide cheque no.

254956 dated 04.02.1989.

Kanchan P Dhuri


                                                  3   / 3                          WPST-410-2017.odt

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 as ofered, is accepted

by 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