Sachin Omprakash Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11650 Bom

                                                                         wp6889.15
                                        (1)

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.6889 OF 2015


 Sachin Omprakash Bajaj,
 Age : 36 YEARS, Occu. Agriculturist,
 R/o Zenda Chowk,
 Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed             ..PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its Secretary,
          Industries and Labour Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

 2.       Sub-Divisional Officer and
          Land Acquisition Officer,
          Ambajogai, Dist. Beed

 3.       Maharashtra Industrial Development
          Corporation, Aurangabad
          Through its Divisional Officer

 4.       Sub-Divisional Officer,
          Majalgaon                               ..RESPONDENTS

 Mr A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner;
 Mr S.R. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 & 4;
 Mr S.S. Deve, Advocate for respondent no.3

                                       CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                      AND
                                               S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 24th August, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Leave to add Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon as respondent no.4.

Addition be carried out forthwith. Issue notice to respondent no.4. The

learned A.G.P. waives service and causes an appearance on behalf of

said respondent.

wp6889.15

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

3. By this petition, the petitioner has putforth prayer clauses (B), (D)

and (E) as under:-

"(B) By appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 29.12.2012 passed by respondent no.2 in File no.2010/LNQ/MIDC/CR/WS7540 under section 33 (2) and 36 (1) (Exhibit E) be quashed and set aside to the extent of land bearing Survey no.53, to the extent of 53 R situated at village Dhangarwadi, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

(D) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities be directed to initiate the proceedings for acquisition of land, in accordance with provisions of section 33 (3) and 33 (4) of the MID Act, 1961 and pass appropriate award by following due process of law.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(E) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to delete the land of the petitioner from notified MIDC area, Dhangarwadi, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed." (There is no prayer clause (C)

4. We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned

Advocate for the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent

nos.1, 2 and 4 and the learned Advocate on behalf of respondent no.3. It

wp6889.15

has been brought to our notice that in practically identical set of facts, this

Court has delivered a judgment on 24 th December, 2017 in Writ Petition

No.285 of 2012 filed by Shri Vitthaldas Tribhuvandas Bagadia and anr.

vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

5. The sequence of events in relation to the land at issue are as

under:-

a) In July, 2010, the petitioner purchased the said land from the

original owner.

b) On 4th November, 2010, the notification under Section 32 (1) of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short "MID

Act") was published.

c) By virtue of Section 32 (4), the land is deemed to be vested in the

Government free from all encumbrances from the date of the

publication of the notice under Section 32 (1)

d) In December, 2010, the petitioner moved an application for seeking

the NA 44 order which was granted.

e) On 29th December, 2012, the award was delivered by respondent

no.2 and compensation amount was deposited in the Treasury.

wp6889.15

f) The respondent authorities are unable to locate any agreement

signed with the petitioner with regard to quantification of the

compensation amount.

g) The contention of the petitioner is that the land could not have been

taken over by the authorities in the absence of an agreement.

h) A notice under Section 32 (5) of the MID Act, dated 29 th December,

2012 was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to formally

hand over the possession of the land within 30 days from the date of

the notice and collect his compensation.

i) The petitioner concedes that the notice under Section 32 (5) was

received by the petitioner, but amount was not accepted by the

petitioner since it was his contention that the land is declared NA 44

and hence, the compensation amount should have been higher.

6. In the backdrop of the factual matrix as recorded above, Shri

Bhandari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that as the

compensation amount was not paid to him and as the award dated 29 th

December, 2012 was not passed on consent terms, it would not exist in

the eyes of law. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of

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

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

wp6889.15

7. We are afraid that the said argument of the petitioner cannot be

accepted for two reasons. Firstly, that this Court has already ruled in the

judgment delivered in Vitthaldas Bagadia (supra) that the acquisition

proceedings culminating into the award are upheld and, therefore, there

could be no interference in the said award. Secondly, the contention of

the petitioner that he would be entitled to derive the benefits flowing under

Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, is also unsustainable in view of the

judgment delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in the matter of Indore

Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

8. In view of the above and since this Court has delivered an extensive

judgment on 20th December, 2017 in almost identical set of facts in

Vitthaldas Bagadia (supra), we do not wish to enlarge the size of this

judgment by reproducing the said judgment hereunder. Suffice it to say

that this petition can be partly allowed in the light of the directions set out in

Vitthaldas Bagadia (supra) under paragraph 87 of the said judgment.

9. In view of the above, we conclude that this petition need not be

entertained to the extent of the validity of the acquisition proceedings

initiated by the respondents which have culminated into the award dated

29th December, 2012. The validity of the acquisition proceedings is,

therefore, upheld. However, this petition is partly allowed since we are

inclined to direct the State Government to make a reference to the

Collector under Section 33 (3) of the MID Act for the purpose of the final

determination of the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner

wp6889.15

after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. Nevertheless, it

would be necessary to record while negating the submissions of Shri

Bhandari (that the land at issue be treated as being NA 44 for the

purposes of computation of compensation), that Section 32 (4) and Section

32 (5) of the MID Act mandate that once the land vests in the State

Government pursuant to the publication of the notification under Section 32

(1), the owner of the land is precluded from dealing with the said land in

any manner and hence, the land at issue shall be deemed to be an

agricultural land.

10. We, therefore, issue the following directions :-

(i) The validity of the acquisition proceedings culminating into an

award dated 29th December, 2021 is upheld.

(ii) Amount of compensation finally determined by the respondents

including the Collector without rendering an opportunity to the

petitioners contemplated under Section 33(4) of the Maharashtra

Industrial Development Act, 1961 is set aside.

(iii) The State Government shall refer the case to the Collector for

determination of compensation in accordance with Sub-section (3)

of Section 33 of the said MID Act, 1961.

wp6889.15

(iv) The amount deposited by the acquiring body before the Treasury

shall be subject to the further orders, as may be passed by

the Collector for payment to the petitioners.

(v) The Collector shall complete the exercise of determination of

compensation in accordance with Section 33(5) as expeditiously

as possible and preferably within six months from today.

(vi) It is made clear that this Court has not made any adjudication on

the merits of the quantum of compensation.

(vii) Rule is partly made absolute in the above terms.

(viii) There shall be no order as to costs.

11. All concerned parties to act on the print out copy of this judgment

obtained from the official website of the Bombay High Court.

  (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                          (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

 amj