Thakubai Rama Vir Alias Thakubai ... vs Murlidhar Rama Vir And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 17135 Bom

                                 (1)                   wp-2806-2020 judg


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO.2806 OF 2020
                     WITH CA/9356/2021 IN WP/2806/2020

1.       Murlidhar S/o Rama Veer,
         Age : 63 years, Occup: Agri.
         R/o Golatgaon, Taluka and
         District Aurangabad.

2.       Shyamrao S/o Rama Veer,
         Age : 60 years, Occup. Agri.
         R/o Golatgaon, Taluka and
         District Aurangabad.

3.       Dagadu S/o Rama Veer
         Age: 69 years, Occup. Agri,
         R/o Golatgaon, Taluka and
         District Aurangabad.

4.       Ashok S/o Gunjaba Dhongade,
         Age: 51 years, Occup. Agri,
         R/o Golatgaon, Taluka and
         District Aurangabad.

5.       Shobhabai Govind Kahite
         Age: 54 years, Occup. Agri,
         R/o At Lalwadi Post Golatgaon
         Taluka and District Aurangabad.

6.       Ramkorabai Bharat Kahite
         Age: 51 years, Occup. Agri,
         R/o At Lalwadi Post Golatgaon
         Taluka and District Aurangabad.

7.       Shamsing S/o Shivlal Kahite
         Age: 49 years, Occup. Agri,
         R/o At Lalwadi Post Golatgaon
         Taluka and District Aurangabad.

8.       Rupchand S/o Jayram Kahite
         Age: 74 years, Occup. Agri,
         R/o At Lalwadi Post Golatgaon
         Taluka and District Aurangabad.             ...Petitioners

         Versus

1.       The State of Maharashtra




::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 11/12/2021 03:54:09 :::
                                   (2)                      wp-2806-2020 judg


         Through its Secretary,
         Revenue and Forest Department,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.       The Divisional Commissioner,
         Aurangabad.

3.       The Collector,
         Aurangabad.

4.       Special Land Acquisition Ofcer/
         Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),
         Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal,
         Aurangabad.

5.       The Executive Engineer,
         Minor Irrigation, Division no.-1
         Aurangabad.                                     ...Respondents

                                 ...
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel h/f Mr. S.R. Sapkal, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. R.R. Imale, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Mr. A.A. Kokad, Advocate for the Intervenor (Applicant in
CA/9356/2021).
                                 ...
                                CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
                                        S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

                         RESERVED ON : 24th NOVEMBER, 2021
                       PRONOUNCED ON : 09th DECEMBER, 2021

JUDGMENT (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of

the learned counsel for the parties, heard fnally.

2. The lands of the petitioners were declared to be acquired

under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('1894 Act' for short). However,

as no award was passed within 2 years from the declaration, the

petitioners approached this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court,

by order in W.P. No 5049 of 2015 dated 16 th February 2016, declared

(3) wp-2806-2020 judg

that the land acquisition proceeding is lapsed. Thereafter, the

Requiring Body, the Deputy Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation

Division No. 1/respondent no.5, had given an ofer to the petitioners,

that they are ready to purchase their lands directly by private

negotiation and invited their consents. The petitioners gave their

consent. The same authority by his letter dated 18th October 2016

again ofered the petitioners to purchase the lands by private

negotiations. In response thereto the petitioners have executed an

agreement on 21st of October 2016 with the Requiring Body.

3. The Government of Maharashtra, by resolution dated

12.05.2015, had constituted a District level compensation

determination Committee ('the Committee' for short) headed by the

District Collector. The Committee was to consider the factors

enumerated in Section 23 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 ('2013 Act' for short). The said Committee in its meeting dated

30.06.2017 had given the approval to the rates proposed @ Rs.

20,511 per Are to be paid to the petitioners. Again, in the meeting

dated 11.10.2017, a detailed report was submitted to the Committee

for the approval of rates. In the said meeting the rates were

determined @ Rs. 17,39,000 per Hector and the total compensation

amounts were calculated as per the Annexures attached to it.

4. Then the Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad by letter

dated 21.12.2017 requested the Committee to review the rates

(4) wp-2806-2020 judg

determined by it in the meeting dated 11.10.2017. The Committee in

its meeting dated 24.04.2018 decided to apply the rates as per the

ready reckoner. Respondent No. 5/ Requiring Body again by his letter

dated 18.12.2017 addressed to the Superintending Engineer,

Aurangabad, placed his view that the market value assessed by the

Committee in the meeting dated 11.10.2017 has some defciencies and

expressed his apprehension that if such high rates are given to the

petitioners, it may generate food of compensation petitions by the other

land owners. Accordingly, the Superintendent Engineer, by his letter

dated 21.12.2017 requested the Collector Aurangabad to review the

rates and compensation determined in the Committee meeting dated

11.10.2017. The Committee once again determined the compensation

rates in its meeting dated 24.04.2018 in which the Superintending

Engineer was the member. The Superintending Engineer by his letter

dated 27.06.2018 again pointed out to the Committee the given norms

are not applied; hence the compensation should be determined

according to the norms. Thereafter, the Committee revised the rates

fnally in the meeting dated 29.08.2018. The Requiring Body was

satisfed with the norms applied and rates/compensation determined by

the Committee.

5. Then Requiring Body/respondent No. 5 by its letter dated

12.09.2018 requested the petitioners to submit their consent letters. He

also provided the approved letters and the copy of minutes of the

meeting dated 29.08.2018 to the petitioners. The petitioners have

(5) wp-2806-2020 judg

accordingly executed the consent letters on 24 th of September 2018.

Thereafter, the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 executed a sale deed on

11.01.2019. In this background, the petitioners approached this Court

seeking the relief to hold and declare that the compensation

determined in meeting dated 29th of August 2018 by the Committee is

not as per the market price, therefore, it is illegal, and direct the

Requiring Body to pay the compensation of rupees as determined by

the acquiring body in the meeting dated 11.10.2017 by issuing the

appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of writ.

6. The respondents in their afdavit in reply have objected

that, a consent award cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction. The

compensation was determined as per the Act of 2013. The price of

the land was correctly determined in the meeting dated 29 th of August

2018. As amount of assets have also been determined and paid to the

petitioner, the question does not arise to give the rates of the irrigated

lands. Therefore, the petition deserved to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned senior counsel Shri Sapkal for the

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the State at length.

8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue

that, the petitioners are entitled to get the fair compensation. The

Committee had correctly determined the price in the meeting dated

11.10.2017. The petitioners are rustic. They were under an impression

that the rates have been determined applying the rates of irrigated

(6) wp-2806-2020 judg

land. On this specifc condition in their consent letters dated

21.10.2016 they had consented for direct sale of their lands. The

Requiring Body and the Committee has no dispute that the lands of

petitioners were irrigated lands. So, this material aspect could not be

ignored by the Committee to apply the rates of irrigated land. The

Requiring Body/respondents confused the petitioners and forced to

accept the compensation as determined by the Committee in its

meeting dated 29.08.2018. The provisions of 2013 Act have not been

followed scrupulously nor the conditions of agreement dated

21.10.2016 were followed. The petitioners were never invited in any of

the Committee meeting. There were communications between the

Requiring Body and the Committee. The petitioners were never taken

in confdence when the market price was determined and revised. He

also added that, the Requiring Body being State has breached the

promise; hence they are bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

He further argued that the fraud has been played by the Requiring

Body/respondents. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under

Section 63 of the 2013 Act. Hence the dispute is amenable to the writ

jurisdiction of the High Court. The acts on the part of Requiring Body as

well as the Committee are in utter disregard of the principle of fairness

and natural justice. Hence the reliefs may be granted as prayed.

9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader argued that

the petitioners never raised an objection to the rates disclosed by the

respondents/Requiring Body determined in the meeting dated

(7) wp-2806-2020 judg

29.08.2018, that the rates of jirayat lands shall be applied. On the

contrary, the petitioners have executed the said deed accepting the

rates ofered to them. They never whispered that their lands are

irrigated and the rates of irrigated lands shall be applied. The sale

deeds were executed around four months after the consent given by

the petitioners. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents/

Requiring Body confused, and forced the petitioners to accept the rates

as determined by the Committee. Since it was a consent sale

transaction, the petition is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this

Court. The petition deserves to be dismissed. To bolster his argument

he relied on the case law, those will be discussed in due course.

10. The question that arises from the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the parties is, whether the dispute raised by the

petitioners is amenable to the writ jurisdiction?

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranveer

Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary and others,

(2016) 14 SCC 191, relied on by the learned Government Pleader, has

observed in paragraph 10, that once parties agree to the compensation

payable and consent award is passed, the same would bind the parties

unless it is set aside in appropriate proceeding by the Court of

competent jurisdiction. The facts of the said case were that the

notifcations under Section 4 and 6 of the Land acquisition Act,1894

were issued. The possession of the lands of the landowners were also

taken. After taking over the possession, proceedings for determination

(8) wp-2806-2020 judg

of payment of compensation on the basis of agreement was initiated.

The agreement was executed under the Uttar Pradesh Land

Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Awards

by Agreement) Rules 1997. As agreed, the entire compensation was

paid on the same date the landowners accepted the amount of

compensation without any demure and protest. On these facts, the

ratio was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as above. In the said

appeals, the landowners had claimed the interest under Section 34 of

the Land Acquisition Act.

12. In second case of State of Karnataka and Another Vs.

Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 264, relied

on by the learned Government Pleader, the parties entered into

negotiations as regards the market price. Pursuant thereto and in

furtherance thereof the consent awards were passed by the Special

Land Acquisition Ofcer. In light of those facts, the question that arose

before the Court was whether the applications fled by the respondents

therein in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the

Special Land Acquisition Ofcer seeking reference to the Civil Court for

determination of the quantum of compensation were maintainable. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced that the condition precedent for

maintaining application for reference under Section 18 is non-

acceptance of award by the awardee.

13. In the case at hand, the Committee was constituted by the

Government considering the provisions of 2013 Act which permits the

(9) wp-2806-2020 judg

acquisition of land by direct purchase by negotiation with the land

owners, determining the market price applying the guiding factors

prescribed in Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act. Hence, the provisions

of 2013 Act would apply in the case at hand.

14. Section 23A of 2013 Act provides that notwithstanding

anything contained in Section 23, if at any stage of the proceedings,

the Collector is satisfed that all the persons interested in the land who

appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be

included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules

made by the State Government, he may without making further

enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.

The Section is very clear that after the land acquisition proceeding is

initiated by the Collector, at any stage of such proceeding if the parties/

landowners agree in writing, then without going into the procedure to

acquire the land, he may pass a consent award.

15. We have no doubt that the consent terms or award binds

the parties to such consent award. Herein the case only paper

publication inviting the objections was made by the Requiring Body.

The Requiring Body itself had given the ofer to purchase the land by

negotiation based on the Government Resolutions dated 12.05.2015

and 30.09.2015. Accordingly, the Committee determined the rates and

compensation amount. The record does not reveal that at any time the

petitioners were called in the Committee meetings. There was no direct

(10) wp-2806-2020 judg

negotiation with the petitioners. The Requiring Body got the price

determined from the Committee and ofered it to the petitioners.

16. In the light of aforesaid facts, it is to be considered

whether such sale transactions are the consent awards as provided in

Section 23A of 2013 Act and thereby oust the petitioners from the legal

remedy under writ jurisdiction of this Court?

17. Section 63 of 2013 Act is relevant to determine the issue

of the jurisdiction of the High Court. It would be advantageous to

reproduce it as under;

"63. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred -- No Civil Court (other than High Court under article 226 or article 227 of the Constitution or the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to land acquisition in respect of which the Collector or Authority is empowered by or under this Act, and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any matter".

18. The provision is crystal clear that the powers of the High

Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution have not been

disturbed by the 2013 Act relating to any dispute relating to the land

acquisition. We have no hesitation to hold that the High Court has writ

jurisdiction to deal with the dispute regarding the land acquisitions.

19. Taking the advantage of registered sale deed in favour of

the Requiring Body, the learned Government Pleader has vehemently

argued that the petition is barred under the doctrine of alternate

remedy. He went on arguing that the fraud or misrepresentation are

(11) wp-2806-2020 judg

the issues that shall not be tried in writ jurisdiction, on this count also

the petition should not be entertained.

20. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s

Radha Krishna Industries Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh in Civil

Appeal No. 1155 of 2021 pronounced on 20.04.2021 in paragraph

no.23 as under:

" The principles of law that emerges are that:

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has a discretion not to entertain a writ petition.

One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an efective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exception to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been fled for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or

(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efcacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When the right is created by statute, which itself prescribe the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedy is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

(12) wp-2806-2020 judg

(vi) In case there are disputed question of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."

21. The remedy to the aggrieved person in the land

acquisition case as of now in 2013 Act is the reference under Section

64 of the said Act. For that purpose, there shall be an award passed

by the Collector and person interested must not accept the award.

Herein there is no award passed by the Collector. The Requiring Body

got the market price determined from the Committee and ofered the

same to the petitioners and got the sale deeds executed. Since, there

was no award, the sole remedy of reference under Section 64 of 2013

Act for the petitioner has gone. Besides the remedy under said Section

is restricted to the quantum of compensation, the measurement of the

land the apportionment of the amount payable and the right of

Rehabilitation and Resettlement. The facts of the case in hand is

altogether diferent. The petitioners, after the execution of sale deed,

realized that the rates of their lands are not determined as per the

grade of their feld, i.e. irrigated lands.

22. As discussed above, Section 63 of 2013 Act bars the Civil

Court from entertaining disputes relating to land acquisition in respect

of which the Collector or the Authority is empowered by or under the

said act. The dispute relating to land acquisition is essentially the

dispute as regards the rights of the landowners to have fair

(13) wp-2806-2020 judg

compensation, apportionment of shares and measurement of the lands.

Since the issue is of not giving the fair compensation as per the

provisions of 2013 Act by the responsible Committee headed by the

Collector and in the absence of any other remedy, the petitioners

approached this Court.

23. Herein the case, the earlier proceeding which was initiated

under the old 1894 Act was lapsed. Then the Requiring Body the

Minor Irrigation Department published an advertisement and gave an

ofer to the petitioners and on their consent, the proposals were placed

before the Committee. The said Committee never called upon the

petitioners for negotiation and fnally determined the compensation

considering the factors provided in the 2013 Act in the meeting dated

29.08.2018.

24. Before the last meeting, the Committee had determined

the price of the lands of the petitioners in the meeting dated 11.10.2017

and 24.04.2018. It must be noted here that through the procedure of

notifcation etc. is avoided to acquire the lands but the factors to

determine the price of the land as provided under 2013 Act were

binding. To avoid the delay in completing the projects and bring the

uniformity in the compensation of the lands to be acquired, the

Government has constituted the Committee to determine the

Compensation of the lands by negotiation. The negotiation with the

land owners was the prime factor to proceed with the determination of

compensation. But there is no evidence on record to believe that the

(14) wp-2806-2020 judg

Committee or the Requiring Body had any dialogue with land owners

on the market price of their lands. The Committee has played a limited

role of determining the rates of the lands.

25. The Requiring Body had given a simple ofer frst time by

the letter dated 18.10.2016 to the petitioners. Factually, no specifc

price was ofered. Thereafter, the agreements dated 21.10.2016 were

executed among the petitioners and respondent no. 5. In the said

agreement it was specifcally agreed that the land of the petitioners is

irrigated land and that factor shall be considered while determining the

market price to be determined as per Government Resolutions dated

12.05.2015 and 30.09.2015 as well as the provisions of the 2013 Act.

Then the Requiring Body raised the objections against the price

determined by the Committee. Finally, the rates were determined on

the basis of sale transactions of Jirayat land by the Committee on

29.08.2018. Lastly, by a letter dated 12.09.2018, the petitioners were

again called upon to submit their consent on a stamp of Rs. 100 on or

before 30.09.2018. The petitioners believed that the approval granting

the rates by the Committee dated 29.08.2018 is award, and under the

said belief complied with the directions of the letter dated 12.09.2018

by executing the consent deeds undated on stamp paper of Rs. 100. In

the said agreement it was mentioned that the petitioners are agreeing

to sell their lands as market price is determined applying the Jiryat land

as per the government resolution. A specifc amount was also

mentioned therein. Lastly the sale deeds were executed on

(15) wp-2806-2020 judg

10.01.2019 referring to the rates approved by the District Level

Committee dated 29.08.2018.

26. It is the law that the registered document of sale deed

carries the presumption that the transaction was genuine one. Such

documents are subject to cancellation in case the fraud,

misrepresentation, coercion, undue infuence or misrepresentation, is

proved. Normal remedy to get such documents cancelled lies with the

government to determine the compensation for the acquisition of land

otherwise than the regular proceeding as contemplated under 2013

Act, with specifc directions to apply the principles and norms

prescribed in the said Act. The Sub-Divisional Ofcer cum Land

Acquisition Ofcer was monitoring the acquisition proceeding and was

the part of the Committee and directing the Requiring Body to get the

sale deed executed as per the price determined by the Committee time

to time. So, the transaction of sale has a touch of 2013 Act. If the

petitioners wish to get the sale deed cancelled on the ground of fraud,

misrepresentation etc, the only remedy for them is before the Civil

Court. Section 63 of 2013 Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In

the case at hand, the petitioners have no alternate remedy. Hence, no

question arises to apply the doctrine of alternate remedy.

27. The claim of petitioners is very limited to pay them

compensation applying the rates of irrigated land which were

considered by the Committee in its meeting dated 11.10.2017.

(16) wp-2806-2020 judg

28. The State Government constituted the District Level

Compensation Committee under the chairmanship of the District

Collector, who is most responsible person to follow the law and

directions of the government. Unfortunately, he acted upon the

requests of the Requiring Body and entertained its request to review

the rates determined in the meeting dated 11.10.2017. We are not

oblivious of the powers to review of the District Collector in such

matters. He may entertain the request of the Requiring Body, but must

fnd a substantial ground to revise the rates against the facts of the

case. The record reveals that, the Committee as well as Requiring

Body had the knowledge that the lands of the petitioners were irrigated

land. They also had the knowledge that the rates shall be paid for the

irrigated lands. However, the Committee has changed its earlier

determination of the rates only on the ground that the project cost is

going high, it may burden the State Exchequer and there may be

petitions for enhancement of the compensation.

29. The acquiring body is a State. States have legal

obligation to protect and promote human rights, including the rights to

social security, and ensure that people can realize their rights without

discrimination. The State shall be fair with the citizen. The State shall

have to build the trust in the citizen. No citizen shall deprive of a right to

have a just compensation for his acquired land. A bureaucrat like the

District Collector has a great responsibility to maintain the trust of the

citizens in the government.

(17) wp-2806-2020 judg

30. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India confers the right

to property to the citizens. It is the right of the citizen that he shall not

be deprived of his property save by authority of law. It is the

constitutional right of the citizens. The deprivation of right can only be

in accordance with the procedure established by Law. The compulsory

acquisition of the lands under 2013 Act or Land Acquisition Act, 1894

would legally deprive the citizen of their rights to have the property.

The State has taken the care that no property shall be acquired unless

the compensation is paid to the landowner. The 2013 Act is named as

"The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013'. The very title

of 2013 Act mandates that the compensation shall be fair and there

must be transparency in the land acquisition. It is the responsibility of

the Ofcer designated by the State to be fair in determining the

compensation and have the transparency. The Committee was

consisting of all responsible Ofcers. They were not expected to be

unfair in determining the compensation and violate the guidelines

issued by the Government under the provisions of law. The hike in

project cost and apprehension of more litigations is not the sound and

reasonable ground to apply the rates of Jirayat land as against the

irrigated lands of the petitioners. A conscious go-by to the rights of the

citizen itself is a good ground to the aggrieved person to approach the

High Court. Such an act is apparently arbitrary and against the law.

31. The petitioners also have claimed that the doctrine of

promissory estoppel applies and the Requiring Body cannot apply the

(18) wp-2806-2020 judg

rates of non-irrigated land. The elements of promissory estoppel claim

are (1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by

the party to whom the promise is made; (3) the reliance must be both

reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel

must be injured by his reliance. Promissory estoppel is a doctrine that

a promise made without the exchange of consideration is binding and

enforceable if; the defendant made it clear and unambiguous promise.

Promissory estoppel applies when the promisor has made a promise to

the promisee. The promisee must have relied on the promise and

sufered a loss due to non-performance of the contract. The doctrine

prevents the promisor or enterprise from going back on their word or

promise. Herein the case, before the execution of the sale deed there

was a consent and the terms of the contacts were settled and then the

sale deeds were executed. It is not the case that the promisor did

nothing out of the agreement. Having regard to the facts of the case,

we fnd that the petitioners are not entitled to get the beneft of

promissory estoppel.

32. Civil Application No.9356 of 2021 has been fled by the

legal heirs of Rambhau @ Rama S/o. Dagadu Vir for intervention.

They are claiming interest in the compensation amount. To prove their

interest in the property acquired, they wish to intervene in the present

petition. The present petition is not for enhancement of the

compensation. It pertains to the grade of land which was not

considered by the Committee or the Requiring Body, while determining

(19) wp-2806-2020 judg

the compensation. The petitioners have independent remedy to claim

the share from petitioner no.2. The present petition can be decided

even in the absence of these applicants. Hence, we do not fnd any

substance in the civil application.

33. In view of the facts of the case and apparent violation of

the guidelines issued by the Government vide Government Resolutions

dated 12.05.2015 and 30.09.2015, in the absence of remedy before

the Civil Court and the dispute is touching the land acquisition by the

Collector, we are of the considered view that this is a ft case to

exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

We record that the acts of the Committee and Requiring Body are

against the law and they put the petitioners to loss and deprived them

of their legitimate right to get fair compensation for their lands. Hence,

the petition deserves to be allowed and we pass the following order;

ORDER

I) The petition is allowed.

II) The rates of land determined by the District Level Compensation

Determination Committee, Aurangabad in its meeting dated

29.08.2018 applying the rates of Jirayat land, is set aside.

III) The above Committee is directed to determine the compensation

applying the rates of perennial or seasonal irrigated lands as the

case may be within three months from today.

IV) The Committee shall give a hearing to the petitioners for the

determination of the compensation.

                                   (20)                             wp-2806-2020 judg


V)           The Requiring Body/respondent no.5 shall pay the diference

amount of compensation determined by the above Committee

within four months of its decision.

VI)          No orders as to costs.

VII)         Rule made absolute in the above terms.

VIII) Civil Application No.9356 of 2021 stands disposed of.

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




Mujaheed//