Bombay High Court
Raghunath Sakharam Kute vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6334 OF 2020
Shankar Patilba Satpute,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5957 OF 2021
Vinayak Shivram Bhokanal,
Age : 53 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
2 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5959 OF 2021
1. Govind Gangadhar Satpute,
Age : 61 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Jagannath Gangadhar Satpute,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Trimbak Gangadhar Satpute,
Age 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through the Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5962 OF 2021
1. Suryabhan Nathu Pansare (Died)
Through Legal Heirs -
1-A] Rohidas S/o Suryabhan Pansare,
Age : 42 years, Occu. Agril.,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
3 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
1-B] Sunil S/o Suryabhan Pansare,
Age : 38 years, Occu. Agril.,
1-C] Manisha W/o Rajendra Wakchaure,
Age : 34 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Pimpalgaon-Nipani,
Tq. Akole, District Ahmednagar.
1-D] Chandrakala W/o Sharad Bibve,
Age : 32 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Kalas (BK),
Tq. Akole, District Ahmednagar.
1-E] Kamal W/o Suryabhan Pansare,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Chandrabhan Nathu Pansare,
Age : 34 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Sukhdev Nathu Pansare,
Age : 68 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Arjun Nathu Pansare,
Age : 59 years, Occu. Agril.,
5. Balasaheb Nathu Pansare,
Age : 63 years, Occu. Agril.,
6. Latabai Bhima Pansare,
Age : 56 years, Occu. Agril.,
7. Devidas Bhima Pansare,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
Petitioner No.1-A to 1-B, 1-E, 2 to 7 are
R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
4 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5966 OF 2021
Pandharinath Revaji Pansare,
Age : 61 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through the Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5969 OF 2021
Raghunath Sakharam Kute,
Age 67 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
5 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through the Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5977 OF 2021
1. Bhagwat Daji Naikwadi,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Shobha Nivrutti Naikwadi (Died),
Through Legal Heirs -
2-A] Jalindar Nivrutti Naikwadi,
Age : 36 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-B]. Kiran Nivrutti Naikwadi,
Age 32 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through the Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
6 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6027 OF 2021
Somnath Namdeo Shinde,
Age : 56 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6045 OF 2021
Sanjay Diwakar Pote,
Age : 54 years, Occu. Agril. and Service,
R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
7 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6064 OF 2021
1. Bacchav Sukhdeo Satpute,
Age : 64 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
2. Ambarnath Sukhdeo Satpute,
Age : 75 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
3. Shivaji Sukhdeo Satpute,
Age : 72 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
4. Dagadabai Hari Bhoknal,
Age : 64 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Mangalapur, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
5. Sakhubai Baburao Mungase,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
6. Yashodabai Karbhari Ghule,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Pokhari Haveli, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
7. Manda Shankar Chattar,
Age : 48 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Pokhari Haveli, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
8 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
8. Vacchalabai Lahanu Bhagawat,
Age : 52 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Bhagawatwadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6065 OF 2021
Macchindra Mahadu @ Madhav Shinde,
Age : 52 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
9 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
WRIT PETITION NO.6066 OF 2021
1. Janabai Sopan Dighe,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Ramnath Paraji Shinde,
Age : 63 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6067 OF 2021
Maruti Nabaji Satpute,
Age : 61 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
10 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6068 OF 2021
Kondiba Navasa Satpute,
Age : 75 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6069 OF 2021
1. Ramnath Shankar Gholap,
Age : 68 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Nivrutti Ranu Gholap,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Eknath Namdev Gholap,
Age : 69 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Laxman Vithoba Gholap,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
11 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
All R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6133 OF 2021
1. Navnath Banshi Naikwadi,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Sonabai Banshi Naikwadi,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Pandurang Baban Naikwadi,
Age : 72 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
12 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6135 OF 2021
1. Arun Ganpat Naikwadi,
Age : 62 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Kashinath Ganpat Naikwadi,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6136 OF 2021
Sadashiv Laxman Tiwari,
Age : 79 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Tiwari Mala, By-pass road,
Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
13 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6137 OF 2021
1. Ramnath Shankar Gholap,
Age : 68 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Nivrutti Ranu Gholap,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Eknath Namdev Gholap,
Age : 69 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Laxman Vithoba Gholap,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
5. Maruti Tukaram Gholap,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
14 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7262 OF 2021
1. Bhaskar Vishram Shinde,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Dattu Vishram Shinde,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Mina Vishram Shinde @ Mina Sanjay Pawar,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Nilwande, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
4. Ashok Karbhari Satpute,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
5. Satyabhama Vishram Shinde,
Age : 72 years, Occu. Agril.,
6. Ramnath Piraji Shinde,
Age : 62 years, Occu. Agril.,
7. Janabai Sopan Dighe,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
8. Macchindra Mahadu @ Madhav Shinde,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 to 9 R/o Sukewadi,
Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
15 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7263 OF 2021
Bajirao Umaji Satpute (Died)
Through Legal heirs -
1. Mandabai Bajirao Satpute,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
2. Sunita Sanjay Patil,
Age : 37 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Ghulewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
3. Anita Sanjay Ghorpade,
Age : 39 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Sinnar, Tq. Sinnar,
District Nasik.
4. Savita Somnath Roham,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Ghulewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
5. Bhagawat Bajirao Satpute,
Age 31 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
16 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7264 OF 2021
Ramnath Bajirao Satpute (Died)
Through the legal heirs -
1. Kamal W/o Ramnath Satpute,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
2. Ajit S/o Ramnath Satpute,
Age : 38 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar.
3. Rakhi Vinayak Nehe,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Mhaisgaon, Tq. Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar.
4. Rina Ravindra Khatode,
Age 25 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Rajapur, Tq. Sangamner,
District. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
17 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7265 OF 2021
Gorakshnath Vitthal Dhumal,
Age : 51 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7266 OF 2021
Sahebrao Madhav @ Mahadu Shinde,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Sukewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
18 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7267 OF 2021
Punjaram Bhikaji Naikwadi,
Age 70 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7268 OF 2021
1. Bhaskar Bhau Surase,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Trimbak Laxman Surase,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
19 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
3. Sharad Laxman Surase,
Age : 47 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Tarabai Laxman Surase,
Age : 72 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7269 OF 2021
Ashok Karbhari Satpute,
Age 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Maldar Road, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.13, Ahmednagar.
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2021 08:09:31 :::
20 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7270 OF 2021
1. Bhausaheb Baban Bhoknal,
Age : 42 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Parwatibai Baban Bhoknal,
Age : 68 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o Akole, Tq. Akole,
District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Collector,
Through The Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition No.03, Ahmednagar.
3. The Executive Engineer - (Deleted). ... Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. D. A. Bide.
Advocate (Appointed as Amicus Curiae) to Assist the Court :
Mr. S. V. Adwant.
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. B. Yawalkar.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 14.10.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.12.2021
21 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
JUDGMENT : (Per S. G. Mehare, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of the learned advocates for the parties, heard finally.
2. The reference applications filed by the petitioners under
Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as '2013 Act')
against the award passed by the Collector / Land Acquisition
Officer (hereafter referred to as 'L.A.O.') for forwarding it to
the Authority under 2013 Act, were rejected by the L.A.O. by
communication dated 19.08 2019. The L.A.O. has given the
reason that by notice dated 11.02.2019, the petitioners were
called upon to pay the court fees on reference applications, but
they had failed. Hence, their reference applications have been
dismissed.
3. To appreciate the lis amongst the parties, it will be
appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant facts for
consideration as follows :
22 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
(a) By these petitions, the petitioners have impugned the
communications mentioned above on the ground that as per
Section 96 of 2013 Act, the court fees on the reference
application to be forwarded by the Collector to the Authority
under section 64 is exempted.
(b) In 2013 Act, the expression "Court" as was in the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, has been deleted. Section 63 of the
2013 Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
(c) Under the new 2013 Act, the reference applications are
be forwarded by the Collector/L.A.O. to the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority ('the Authority' for short) under section
64 of the 2013 Act. It is not a court. Hence, provisions of
Maharashtra Court Fees Act are not applicable to the present
cases.
(d) Since the land acquisition Act has been re-enacted the
court fees chargeable on reference as provided in Schedule-I,
Article 15 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act would not apply
to the reference applications under 2013 Act.
23 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
4. This Court, by it's order dated 20.08.2021, appointed
learned advocate Mr. S.V. Adwant as an Amicus Curiae. He has
submitted his short notes for consideration.
5. The learned advocates for the petitioners have submitted
various case law in their support. They have the common
arguments that, the court fee is exempted under section 96 of
the 2013 Act. The Competent Authority Constituted/
appointed under the said Act is not a Court. Hence, the
provisions of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act would not apply
to the reference under section 64 of the 2013.
6. The learned A.G.P. Mr. Siddharth B. Yawalkar supporting
the impugned communications argued that, the petitioners
have wrongly interpreted section 96 of the 2013 Act. By that
section, the court fees to be paid on the reference application is
not exempted. It is a proceeding before the Authority. It has the
powers of Civil Court. The proceeding before the Authority is
as good as Civil suit. The parties have right to lead the
evidence and prove the claims. Therefore, Maharashtra Court
Fees Act is squarely applicable to the references made under
24 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
section 64 of the 2013 Act. He has submitted his written points
for consideration.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Adwant, submits that the
designated Authority established under Section 51 of the 2013
Act is neither the Court nor a Tribunal under the General
Clauses Act. The term "Court' must be read in the context in
which it is used in the statute. In the instant case, the
expression "Court" is to be read as comprehending the Courts
of Civil Jurisdiction. Any Authority may have all the trappings
of a Civil Court, yet, it continues to be an Authority and does
not partake the character of a Civil Court. However, the term,
"Authority" defined under the Act of 2013, has to be travel
within the radius set out by the Act and not beyond it.
8. He further points out that Section 63 of the 2013 Act,
bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any dispute
relating to the Land Acquisition, which the Collector or the
Competent Authority is empowered to entertain and decide as
per the new Act. Therefore, the insistence of the State to pay
Court Fees on the reference application under Section 64 of the
2013 Act is misplaced.
25 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
9. He added that Section 70 of the 2013 Act gives the
status of decree to the award passed by the authority, that
clearly implies that, it is provided and meant for execution of
such award and does not indicate that the authority passing
the award is a Civil Court.
10. He also pointed out that Section 96 of the 2013 Act
exempts from the payment of Income-tax, Stamp-duty, fees and
charges. Hence, it would be unreasonable to ask such
applicants to pay the Court Fees on the reference applications.
11. The learned Amicus further submitted that, Section 108
of the 2013 Act provides for an option to the claimant to avail
the better compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, if it is
available under the State Act and also to opt be governed by
the State Act, instead of going under the Central Act. The
significance of this provision lies in saying that the State Act
can be more beneficial than the Central Government, but, in no
case, it be derogatory to the latter legislation. It takes us to say,
that, if the Central Act does not provide for payment of any
26 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Court Fee, the State Act cannot provide for its imposition,
which would be in utter derogation of the principal enactment.
12. The learned Amicus, comparing the various provisions of
old Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the Act of 2013 would
argue that a conjoint reading of Sections 51, 64 and 69 of the
2013 Act, leads to an inescapable inference that the Authority
constituted under Section 51 is invested with the jurisdiction to
decide the dispute relating to the compensation, determine
whether the Collector has followed the parameters set out in
Sections 26 to 30 and thereafter determine the compensation.
In fact, if the provisions of Section 18 of the Act 1894 are
compared and contrasted with provisions of Section 64 of the
Act of 2013, which envisage reference to the Authority, the
only additional feature for which the reference can be made to
the Authority, is objection with regard to the right of
rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapter V and VI of the
Act of 2013. This additional investiture of power of disposition
of disputes, however, does not dilute the primary character of
the Authority to adjudicate the disputes as to compensation
and determination of the compensation on a reference.
27 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
13. Referring to Sections 6 and 8 of the General Clauses Act,
the learned Amicus has pointed out that minute reading of
Section 8 will lead to the only conclusion that re-enacted land
acquisition legislation gives a different intention and object
therefore, the references will be of little help to the State and
the edifice sought to be raised will fall flat. The repeal of 1894
Act is without prejudice to the general application of section of
the General Clauses Act,1897. However, the principles under
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act shall be applicable unless
a contrary intention appears in any other provisions of the Act
of 2013. He has added further that the award passed by the
L.A.O. is nothing more than an offer of compensation. Hence, it
does not partake the character of decree or order. The
reference to an adjudicating body, be it a Court under Section
18 of the 1894 Act or Authority under Section 64 of the 2013
Act, is for adjudication of the just and fair compensation for
the acquired land, in accordance with the provisions of
relevant laws.
14. Then turning to the main issue of court fees involved in
these petitions, the learned Amicus commented that, the 2013
28 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Act reads that the acquisition shall be at the cost of the
acquiring body, which clearly speaks in favour of exemption
from the payment of court fee at least by the person whose
land is acquired under the said Act. There is no provision
under the 2013 Act corresponding to the Section 53 of the
1894 Act by which the provisions of Civil Procedure Code were
made applicable to the proceedings in the nature of Land
Reference Application. The referential proceedings are not in
the form of Civil suit. A civil suit, by and large, is meant for
vindication of the civil rights of the person as against its
violation at the hands of another individual, although at time,
it has to be filed against the State as well. Looking from any
angle, such proceedings cannot be equated to a suit on which
court fee is required to be paid.
15. The leaned Amicus, raised the point that, if a particular
provision was covered in the earlier statute but has been
dropped out in the later statute, it must be imputed that the
legislature in its wisdom and application of mind, consciously,
decided to omit, earlier provision. In view thereof, the same
cannot be invoked and pressed into service partially, as is
29 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
suggested by the State. Deletion of the express provision in the
Act of 1894, whereby the reference was to be made to a civil
court and requiring a person to file a referent to the Authority
through the Collector, under the Act of 2013, is a pointer to the
legislative intention that such authority shall not be a court of
law. Resultantly, the idea of payment of court fee also stands
obliterated. Another salutary principle, which the State has to
consider is that, what cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly. The rule of law also contemplates that everything
shall be done in accordance with law and within the four
corners of law and not otherwise. The entire scheme of 2013
Act, will have to be taken in to account and considered while
dealing with the issue at hand which does not postulate the
payment of Court Fees while making a reference under section
64 of the 2013 Act.
16. The next limb of the submission of the learned Amicus is
that the Court Fees Act 1870, was originally enacted as a
"Central Act" and continues to be in force by virtue of
provisions of Section 292 of the Government of India Act,
1935, and Article 372 of the Constitution, even after the
30 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Constitution of India has come into force. As per Entry 3 of List
II (State List) of the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of
India, the court fees payable in all courts except the Supreme
Court, is a State subject and only State Legislatures are
competent to enact or amend any law Court fees payable in the
High Courts and Courts subordinate thereto (Article 246 (3) of
the Constitution of India) having jurisdiction in any State. He
referred to the Court Fees Acts of the States of Assam, Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh,
and submitted that in pursuance of the Constitutional mandate
those States have amended the Court Fees Acts of their States.
17. The learned Amicus further takes us to the legal
provisions that neither the Central Statute nor the State Acts
have authorized the State to impose, levy and recover court
fees on the reference made by a person interested, for
enhancement of compensation under Section 64 of the Act of
2013 as said Act does not prescribe for it. The payment of
court fees is a matter between the State and the suitor of the
claim. The payment of Court Fees amounts to revenue for
welfare of the public and society at large and prescribes the
31 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
mode of collecting the Court Fees. The Maharashtra Court Fees
Act, as amended by Amending Act 24 of 2012, with effect from
01.05.1960, is a taxing statute and is subject to interpretation,
therefore, we need to read the provisions of the Court Fees
coherently and disjunctively. Such a reading would reveal that
the proceedings taken up under Section 64 of the Act of 2013,
is by way of an application to be given to the Collector, who
would in turn refer the matter to the Authority, who shall deal
with matter by considering the grounds on which the objection
is raised to the award passed.
18. He also added that the reference application under
Section 64 of the 2013 Act is not a document within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, as a
result of which it is not amenable to payment of any court fee
under the said Act. Neither Section 7 nor any other analogous
provisions of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, issues a mandate
that a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act shall require
to pay the equal or any amount of court fee. The reference
application under Section 64 of the 2013 Act is as good as an
application for payment mentioned in Section 20 (xiii) of the
32 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Bombay Court Fees Act, which is exempted from payment of
court fees. Hence, no court fees shall be charged on such
reference applications. The reference application under the
2013 Act cannot be equated with the reference application
under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
19. Lastly, the learned Amicus pressed into service the rules
of interpretation of law. He pressed that Plain meaning Rule,
Purposive interpretation rule, and Mimansa rules of
interpretation, and the rule of literal interpretation shall be
applied.
20. On the basis of various provisions of law, the purpose
and object of law, rules of interpretations, effect of repealing of
the Act and re-enactment of the Law on Land Acquisition, the
learned Amicus opined that no court fee shall be levied on the
reference application under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
21. Per Contra, the learned A.G.P. Mr. Siddharth Yawalkar for
the State vehemently argued that Section 5 of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act requires to pay court fee on any document filed
in the court, Section 7 further provides that court fee is
33 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
chargeable on the appeal against the award of compensation.
Hence, the interpretation that Section 95 of the 2013 Act
exempts the court fees on reference application is
unacceptable. He also referred to Section 20 of the said Act,
and pointed out that exemption in court fee is not granted to
the application under Article 15 of Schedule I of the said Act.
He further referred to Sections 36, and 40 of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act and various provisions of the 2013 Act along
with Sections 6 and 8 of the General Clauses Act and argued
that the wording used in Article 15 of the Maharashtra Court
Fees Act is to be read as reference under Section 64 of the
2013 Act. He relied on few case laws those will be referred to
at the relevant time. He prayed to dismiss the petitions.
22. The controversy that has arisen since the Act of 1894 is
repealed and the Act of 2013 is re-enacted with various
modifications and additions of provisions in the said Act. The
moot question that has been raised in these petitions is that the
2013 Act does not provide for the payment of Court Fees on
the reference application under Section 64 of the said Act.
Hence, the petitioners in the absence of specific provisions
34 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
cannot be insisted to pay the Court Fees. The petitioners have
heavily relied on Section 96 of the 2013 Act and claimed that it
is a clear provision that exempt the petitioners from payment
of court fees. In the light of the issues raised in the petitions,
we would have to go through the various the provisions of
Court Fees Act and the land Acquisitions Act.
23. Section 96 of the 2013 Act and Section 51 of the 1894
Act which are similar/identical are reproduced hereunder for
ready reference.
"96. Exemption from income-tax, stamp duty and fees -- No
income-tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or
agreement made under this Act, except under section 46 and
no person claiming under any such award or agreement shall
be liable to pay any fee for a copy on the same."
"51. Exemption from stamp-duty and fees -- No award or
agreement made under this Act shall be chargeable with
stamp-duty, and no person claiming under any such award or
agreement shall be liable to pay any fee for a copy of the
same."
24. Section 96 of the 2013 Act is the replica of the old
Section 51 of the 1894 Act except addition of one word
'income tax'. Be that as it may, the said section in the first part
35 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
provides that no income-tax and stamp duty shall be charged
on the award or agreement and in the second part it provides
that no person shall be liable to pay any fee for a copy of
award or agreement made under the 2013 Act. The stamp-duty
is exempted on any award and agreement.
25. We have to examine what is award and agreement under
the 2013 Act to find out the correct answer to the question
raised by the petitioners that in view of Section 96 of the 2013
Act, the court fees on reference is exempted. Simultaneously,
we also need to examine what is reference under section 64 of
the 2013 Act.
26. The term Award has not been defined in the 2013 Act.
However, in Sections 23 and 25 in Chapter IV titled
"Notification and Acquisition" and in Sections 69 and 70 in
Chapter VIII titled "Establishment of Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority", there is a reference
of the term "Award". Under chapter IV, the Collector/ Land
Acquisition Officer has to pass an Award. In Chapter VIII the
Authority has to pass an award under Section 69 of the 2013
Act. An Award passed by the Authority under chapter VIII as
36 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
provided under Section 70(2) is a deemed decree and the
statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment
within the meaning of clause (2) and clause (9) respectively, of
Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
Every such award, which is a deemed decree, is executable.
Section 60(2) of 2103 Act confers original jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon every reference under Section 64 to the
Authority. However, as provided under subsection 3 of Section
60 of the said Act, the Authority is not bound by the procedure
laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by
the principles of natural justice and subject to the other
provisions of the said Act and of any rules made thereunder, it
shall have the power to regulate its own procedure. It is clear
that while regulating its own procedure while determining the
award the provisions of the Act of 2013 and Rules made
thereunder shall be followed by the Authority. However, the
Authority has limited powers as vested in a Civil Court under
the Code of Civil Procedure as provided under Section 60(1) of
the Act of 2013. The Authority determines the reference after
the reference application is made to him by the Collector/
L.A.O. under Section 64 of 2013 Act or on the application
37 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
made by the applicant on failure of the Collector to make a
reference to him.
27. As against the above, the Collector / L.A.O. has to pass
land acquisition Award after making an enquiry on the
objections raised by the persons interested in the land to be
acquired, the true area of the land and the compensation as
determined under Section 27 of the 2013 Act. It has to pass an
Award within a period of twelve months form the date of
publication of the declaration under Section 19. The Collector
shall adopt the criterion in assessing and determining the
market value of the land, as provided under Section 26 and has
to consider the parameters provided under Section 28 in
determination of Award, in case the land is to be acquired at
the cost of Local authority or Requiring body. In any such
proceeding before the Collector or the Authority, the Local
Authority or Requiring body concerned as provided under
Section 95(2) may appear and adduce the evidence for the
purpose of determining the amount of compensation. However,
as per the proviso to the said section, no such Local Authority
or Requiring Body shall be entitled to demand a reference to
38 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
the Authority concerned under Section 64. As soon as the
Award is filed in the office of Collector it become final. It is the
conclusive evidence of true area and market value of the land
and assets attached thereto between the Collector and the
person interested. After passing the Award the Collector has to
tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the
persons interested as provided under Section 77. The law is
settled that the award passed by the Collector is a mere offer to
the person/s interested and not a judgment or a decree. We
agree with this proposition of law with the learned Amicus.
28. The procedure for passing the Awards by the Collector
and the Authority as discussed above made is clear that the
reference to the Authority under Section 64 is not a
continuation of the proceeding before the Collector. In
reference to the Authority the applicants have to prove the
grounds of objection taken on the Award passed by the
Collector by leading the evidence. The Authority as provided
under Section 69 has to consider whether the Collector has
followed the parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30 and
the provisions under Chapter V of the Act of 2013. This Section
39 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
gives the powers to the Authority to examine the Award passed
by the Collector beside the burden of the applicant to prove
his/her grounds of objections raised in the reference
application.
29. Secondly the term 'agreement made under this Act' as
find place in Section 96, such agreements are exempted from
the payment of Stamp-duty. The landowner may by consent
agree for the compensation for the lands acquired for the
private companies or public private partnership as provided
under Section 26(1)(c). In such a case there may be an
agreement. Another written agreement may be there,
whenever the occupation of waste or arable land appears
necessary for the public purpose temporarily and the Collector
offer him/her a compensation in a gross sum of money or by
paying monthly or periodical basis.
30. On the basis of the words used in Section 96 of the 2013
Act as regards the exemption of Stamp duty and fee, the next
point to be considered is that whether the Stamp-duty and the
fee that is exempted under Section 96 and the expression
"Court Fees" are the same concepts ?
40 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
31. The stamp-duty is levied under the Maharashtra Stamp
Act. It is a taxing statue and fiscal measure to secure revenue
for the State. The Stamp-duty is the State levy paid on
instrument which includes every document by which any right
or liability is, or purports to be created, transferred, limited,
extended, extinguished or recorded, but does not include a bill
of exchange, cheque, promissory note, bill of lading, letter of
credit, policy of insurance, transfer of share, debenture, proxy
or receipt. The State has power to legislate on Stamp-duty
under Entry 44, List III in Schedule VII of the Constitution of
India.
32. The dictionary meaning of the term 'Fee' is a payment in
return for services. The Court fee is a fee that is imposed on a
litigant to contest a case in the court of Law. The Court fees is
levied by the government on the people seeking judicial
remedies through a legislation. We understand from the
meaning of Reading these two terms as defined above together
i.e. Stamp-duty and Fess, no one doubts that there is difference
between the two. One is clearly a Tax and the latter is not
strictly a tax. Article 366(28) of the Constitution defines
41 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Taxation and Tax: "Taxation includes the imposition of any tax
or impost, whether general or local or special, and 'tax' shall be
construed accordingly". The State may legislate the Court Fees
under Entry 3 List II in Schedule VII of the Constitution of
India.
33. The Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting Entry 3, List
II in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, in the case of
Government of Madras Vs. Zenith Lamp and Electrical Ltd.
[AIR 1973 SC 724] has held that the fees taken in Courts
cannot be equated with taxes and observed as under :
"But even if the meaning is the same, what is 'fees' in a
particular case depends on the subject-matter in relation to
matter fee are imposed not in this case we are concerned with
the administration of civil justice in a State. The fees must
have relation to the administration of civil justice. While
levying fees the appropriate legislature is competent to take
into the account all relevant factors, the value of the subject
matter of the dispute, the various steps necessary in the
prosecution of a suit or matter, the entire cost of the upkeep of
courts and officers administering civil justice, the vexatious
nature of a certain type of litigation and other relevant
matters. It is free to levy a small fee in some case, a large fee
in others, subject of course to the provisions of Article 14. But
one thing the Legislature is not competent to do, and that is to
make litigants contribute to the increase of general public
revenue. In other words, it cannot tax litigation, and make
42 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
litigations pay, say for road building or education or other
beneficial schemes that a State may have. There must be a
broad co-relationship with the fees collected and the cost of
administration of justice."
34. Discussing the above case and various other cases the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in Secretary to Government of Madras V.
P.R. Sriramuln and another (1996) 1 SCC 345, observed in
paragraph No.14, which is extracted hereunder :
"14. Having regard to the decisions and various
pronouncements cited above it is difficult to accept the
reasoning and the view taken by the High Court in the
impugned judgment. As discussed above if the essential
character of the levy is that some special service is intended as
quid pro quo to the class of citizens which is intended to be
benefited by the service and a broad and general correlation
between the amount so collected and the expenses incurred in
providing the services is found to exist, then such levy would
partake the character of "fee", irrespective of the fact that such
special services for which the amount by levy of fee is collected
incidentally and indirectly benefit the general public also. In
order to establish the correlation between the amount
recovered by way of "fee' and the expenses incurred in
providing the services they should not be examined to
minutely or be whipped in golden scale to discern any
difference between the two. It is not necessary to ascertain the
same with any mathematical exactitude for finding the
correlation out the test would be satisfied if a broad and
general correlation is found to exist and once such a broad
correlation between the totality of the expenses on the services
43 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
rendered as a whole, on the one hand and the totality of the
amount so raised by way of the fee, on the other is established,
it would be no part of the legitimate exercise in the
examination of the constitutionality of the concept of the
amongst to embark upon its effect in the individual cases. If
the aforesaid relation is found to exist in the levy of the fee,
the levy cannot be said to be wanting in its essential character
of a fee on the ground that the measure of its distribution on
the persons or incidence is disproportionate to the actual
services made available to them......"
35. A clear law is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the above case that the Court fee levied by the State is not a
tax, but it is a fee levied for a special service to the class of
citizens i.e. litigants. It is a fee collected to expend on up
keeping the Courts and the Officers administering the civil
justice.
36. The difference between the Stamp-duty and the Court
Fee can be understood well by reading and reproducing the
relevant Entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of
India.
Entry 3 List II reads as under :
"3. Officers and servants of the High Court; procedure in rent
and revenue courts; fees taken in all courts except the Supreme
Court."
44 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Entry 44 in List III reads as under :
"44. Stamp duties other than duties or fees collected by means of
judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamp duties."
37. The Stamp Act relates to the stamps and rates of stamp
duties other than those in respect of the document specified in
entry 91 of List-I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India. As seen above, the Court Fee Act is the legislation
relating to the administration of civil justice. First is the Taxing
law and latter a payment in return for service. The Above
articles of the Constitution further make the difference crystal
clear in the two terms i.e. Stamp-duty and the Court Fees. The
court fee is taken in all courts. The stamp duty is charged on
the instruments other than the duties or fees collected by
means of judicial stamps. The stamps are of two types. The
Judicial Stamps and non-Judicial/General Stamps. The general
stamps are affixed on the instrument to recover the tax as
revenue. Section 46 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act
empowers the State Government either to reduce or remit the
fees mentioned in the first and second schedule of the said Act.
The State Government under the said section also has the
45 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
powers to cancel or vary the orders reducing and remitting the
court fees.
38. We also have to consider whether the term "Fees" used
in Section 96 of the 2013 Act is in the context of the court fees.
Reading the said Section carefully it gives an answer that the
Section is in two parts. First part states about the exemption of
income tax and stamp duty and second part is about the
exemption of the fees. The words in the second part reads :
"... and no person claiming under any such award or
agreement shall liable to pay any fee for a copy of the same."
39. The words are plain and unambiguous that the fee is
exempted on the copy of award and agreements made and
executed under the 2013 Act. 'Fee' is the charge paid for
something. Something may be many things. The word 'Fee' is a
noun. All nouns can be further classified as a proper or
common noun. Various types of proper nouns are prefixed to
the noun Fees. We may have some examples of fees, there may
a tuition fee, admission fee, examination fee, annual fee, ATM
card maintenance fee, doctor's and lawyer's advice fee, copying
fee, registration of documents fee, entry fee, membership fee,
46 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
etc. The words used in the second part of the Section 96 of the
2013 if read meticulously, we find that the term 'fee' used
therein is in the context of the fee on the copy of the award
and agreement.
40. The concept of acquisition involves an element of
permanency and finality involving a transfer of title. In other
word, acquisition of land is a transfer of title. The
consideration of the acquired land is by way of compensation.
Every transfer of title of immovable property shall be made by
conveyance. Conveyance as defined under section 2(g) of
Maharashtra Stamp Act means a conveyance of sale,
instrument, every decree or final order of any civil court. As
discussed above every Conveyance as defined under section
2(g) of Maharashtra Stamp Act means a conveyance of sale,
instrument, every decree or final order of any civil court. Every
such conveyance valuing more than Rs.100/- is compulsorily
registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The
Stamp-duty has to be paid on such conveyance as per Article
25 of Schedule I of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.
47 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
41. As discussed above every award passed under the 2013
Act is a deemed decree as provided under Section 70(2) of the
said Act. The State of Maharashtra has amended the
Registration Act 2010 wherein Section 89A has been inserted.
As per the said amendment, every court passing, the decree or
order creating, declaring, transferring limiting, or
extinguishing any right, title or interest to or in immovable
property, shall send a copy of such decree or order together
with a memorandum describing the property to the registering
officer within the local jurisdiction the whole or any part of the
immovable property comprised in such decree or order is
situate. The said provision is clear that every decree or order
passed that creates or extinguishes the right in present or
future shall be registered and stamp fee shall be charged.
42. The next question that is raised is the Authority under
Section 64 of the 2013 Act is not the Court nor can be equated
with the Court. Hence, the provisions of the Maharashtra Court
Fees Act would not apply to the reference under Section 64 of
the 2013 Act.
48 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
43. Section 51 of the 2013 Act specifically provides that for
the purpose of speedy disposal of the dispute relating the land
acquisition, the Authority shall be established by the
appropriate Government. Appropriate Government as defined
in Section 3(e) of 2013 Act, means in relation to acquisition of
land situated within the territory of, a State, the State
Government. In view of the powers conferred under Section 51
of the 2013 Act, the Government of Maharashtra has
established the Authority. The appointments of the Presiding
Officer and the Staff of the Authority shall be made by the
State Government as provided under Sections 53 and 55 of the
2013 Act. The salaries and allowances and other service
conditions of the officers and employees of the said Authority
shall be as prescribed by the State Government as provided
under Section 55(3) and the Salary and allowances and other
conditions and terms of services of the presiding officer of the
Authority shall be paid by the State Government as prescribed.
In short, all the expenses to provide the services to the litigants
through the Authority shall be borne by the State Government.
The Authority established under Section 51 is created by
statute conferring the powers to dispose of the disputes
49 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and
resettlement. It has original jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
every reference made to it under Section 64 of the 2013 Act as
provided under Section 60(2) of the said Act. It is clear from
the above provisions that the reference under Section 64 of the
2013 Act is a 'dispute' and that is to be adjudicated by the
Authority. It has the same powers as are vested in the Civil
Court under Code of Civil Procedure including to receive the
evidence on affidavit and also to review its decisions,
directions and orders. The appeal against the award passed by
the Authority lies to the High Court under Section 74 of the
2013 Act. So, the Authority is subordinate to the High Court.
44. Section 7 of Maharashtra Court fees Act states that court
fees be charged on the memorandum of appeal against an
order under the acquisition of lands for public purpose. This
provision is not disturbed anywhere in any act. If the award
passed by the Authority under Section 69 of the 2013 Act is
challenged before the High Court the party except the State
has to pay the court fees as per the Maharashtra Court Fees
50 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Act. The same litigant has to pay court fee in one court and no
fee charged in another court. This may be anomaly.
45. In view of the points raised by the learned Amicus that
the Act of 2013 reads that the acquisition shall be at the cost of
acquiring authority, which clearly speaks in favour of
exemption from the payment of court fee at least by the
persons whose land is acquired under the said Act. There is no
provision under 2013 Act corresponding to Section 53 of the
1894 Act by which the provisions of Code Procedure Code, is
made applicable to the proceedings in the nature of the land
reference application. The proceedings before the Authority
under 2013 Act is not a suit. Hence, court fees shall not be
paid on such reference. Neither Section 7 nor any analogous
section of the Maharashtra court fees Act issues a mandate that
a person applying for reference to the authority under section
64 of the 2013 Act shall require to pay any amount of court
fee, therefore, it cannot be said and sustained that person
applying for the reference under the 2013 Act must pay court
fee. The State was exempted from the payment of court fee on
the appeal preferred against the award of compensation for
51 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
acquisition of land. Therefore, inequality prevailing before the
law has been removed by the new 2013 Act, bringing the
individual at par with the State by dispensing with the
necessity of payment of the Court-fee even by aggrieved
individuals. We need to examine the relevant sections with its
purpose.
46. Section 7 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, as
discussed above states that the court fee is chargeable on the
appeal memo preferred against an order determining
compensation for the acquisition of the land. Section 5 the
Court Fee Act, speaks of fees on documents filed, etc. in courts
or in public offices. The kinds of the documents have been
specified in Schedule-I and II of the said Act, which are
chargeable with court fees and to be filed and preferred before
the court and in public offices. In the first Schedule there is
mention of plaint, memorandum of appeal, application,
certificate, probate and also the application to the collector for
reference under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act 1894. It
is provided in Section 65 of 2013 Act that, any person who
does not accept the award passed by the Collector, may file an
52 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
application to the collector requesting him to refer the
application the Authority.
47. The procedure in the 2013 and 1894 Act, so far as
reference against the award of Collector is concerned, is the
same. In the re-enacted 2013 Act, the provision is amended
regarding the reference application to the Authority instead of
the court as was in 1894 Act. Most of the provisions in the
2013 Act are similar except few changes in the words, or some
additions. The procedure to determine the market price of the
land is mostly intact except few changes. Considering the
related provisions involved in this case, it may safely be said
that the structure of the 1894 Act has not been totally changed
by the 2013 Act. The Authority to decide the dispute as regards
the compensation is established with sole object to expedite the
reference. The powers of the Court have been conferred on the
Authority as if it is a Special Court. A separate mechanism has
been set up for quick disposal of the references made by the
persons who want to claim a particular amount as market price
for their properties acquired.
53 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
48. This expression 'document' in Section 5 shall be read in
the context of the nature of petitions/applications referred to
in the first schedule. The expression 'documents' used in
Section 5 of the Court Fees Act are not restricted to be filed in
the courts but it includes the documents to be filed or
presented in the public offices also. The dictionary meaning of
the term "Public Office" is a position of authority or service
involving responsibility to the public, especially within the
Government. The office that is created by the constitution or
through legislation with authority conferred by the legislature
indicates that an office is a public office. The Authority under
the 2013 Act is created by statute by the legislation. Hence, it
must be a public office covering the public office as expressed
in section 5 of the court fees act.
49. The point is raised by the learned Amicus that Section 7
of the Court Fees Act is charging Section, however, neither
Section 7 nor any analogous provisions of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act issues a mandate that a person applying for the
reference to the authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act
shall be required to pay court fee.
54 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
50. We have gone through Section 7 of the Maharashtra
Court Fees Act. Sub-section 1 of Section 7 is a specific provision
under the said Act for the court fee to be paid on the
memorandum of appeal against an order relating to
compensation under any Act for the time being force for the
acquisition of land for public purpose. Further it provides how
to calculate the court fee. The term "under any Act for the time
being in force" is of great significance to understand whose
order relating to the compensation if challenged in the appeal
shall be chargeable with court fee. Now the compensation
dispute under reference by the individual is to be decided by
the Authority established under Section 51 of the 2013 Act.
The above term clearly covers the Authority under 2013 Act.
51. Section 6 of the Court Fees Act is to be looked into which
speaks of certain kinds of the suits on which the court fee is
payable. Section 6(i) pertains to the suit for money including
suit for compensation. The provisions to make an application
for the reference to be made to the collector under Section 65
of the 2013 Act and Section 18 of the 1894 are similar except
adding one more ground of the rights of rehabilitation and
55 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
resettlement in 2013 Act. It provides that the reference
application shall mention the grounds of objections against the
award of the Collector. The grounds of objections also have
been provided in the sections itself. The grounds are whether
his objection is on the measurement of the land acquired, the
amount of compensation, the person whom it is payable.
52. It is further pointed out by the learned Amicus that since
the State has been exempted from the payment of court fees
under Section 7 of the said act, the inequality prevailing before
the law has been removed by the 2013 Act.
53. We must state here that the provision for charging the
Court Fees was neither provided in the 1894 Act nor under
2013 Act. It is the State legislation. It is in cases where the
State is the acquiring body, then the court fees is exempted.
This Section was in the Court Fees Act even prior to the repeal
of 1894 Act. We reiterate that most of the provisions of the
1894 Act are reproduced in 2013 Act. Instead of the Court the
Authority has been established in 2013 Act. There is no explicit
provision in either of the Land Acquisition Acts as regards to
the Court Fees Act. The State in it's power has enacted the
56 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
Court Fees Act determining the nature of dispute for which the
court fees shall be levied. Having regard to the relevant
provisions of Court Fees Act, as discussed above, we are not
impressed upon the preposition put forth by learned Amicus,
that the 2013 Act has removed the inequality.
54. The pivotal point raised by the learned Amicus is that
the principles under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act shall
be applicable unless contrary intention appears in any other
provisions of 2013 Act. He has referred to the case of
Bansidhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1989)2 SCC 557 . He urged
that the Authority established in 2013 Act cannot be equated
with the Court (Reference Court) as envisaged in 1894 Act.
55. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act states the effect of
repeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Manohar
Singh (1955) S.C.J. 25 has observed that when the repeal is
followed by fresh legislation on the same subject, Courts would
undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of new Act but only
for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a
different intention. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that
the purpose behind establishing the Authority under Section 51
57 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
of 2013 Act is only the speedy disposal of the disputes relating
to the land acquisition, compensation etc. as provided in the
2013 Act. Section 51 of the 2013 Act under which the
Authority is established itself made the legislative intention
explicit. Therefore, we do not find that the said section as
regards to the Authority for the disposal of the disputes falling
under the 2013 Act is enacted with different intention.
56. The next Section that the Amicus has referred to is
Section 8 of the General Clauses Act. Referring the said
Section, he would point out that the minute reading of this
section will lead us to the only conclusion that re-enacted Land
Acquisition legislation gives different intention. Therefore, the
reference of 1894 Act in other Act cannot be construed as
reference to the provisions of 2013 Act.
57. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State through S.P. New Delhi
Vs. Ratan Lal Arora A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2364 has observed that
the object of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, obviously
and patently made known is that where any Act or Regulation
is repealed and re-enacted, reference in any other enactment to
provisions of the repealed enactment must be read and
58 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
construed as references to the re-enacted new provisions,
unless a different intention appears. The 1894 Act is repealed
by 2013 Act under Section 114. In view of the provisions of
Section 8 of the General clauses Act, where there are
references of repealed Act in any other enactment or
document, it shall be construed as references to the provisions
so re-enacted. For example, The Factories Act of 1934 was
repealed and re-enacted by the Act of 1948 and therefore by
virtue of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act 1897 references
in the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Act of 1934 must be
construed as references to the Act of 1948. In Schedule I clause
15 of Maharashtra Court Fees Act, there is reference of the
1894 Act as relates to the reference to be made to the Collector
under Section 18 of the said Act.
58. The re-enacted, 2013 Act, without making any change
except the forum to whom the Collector shall make a reference
on the application of the person interested kept the entire
procedure same. In the old and re-enacted Act, the right to
make a reference on refusing the award passed by the Collector
is also maintained. Nothing contrary intention appears from
59 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
the 2013 Act as regards to the reference to Authority. Hence,
we are of the opinion that merely changing the forum to decide
the dispute as regards the compensation, that too established
with express intention to have speedy disposal would not make
the provisions of Maharashtra Court Fees Act inapplicable to
the reference under Section 65 of 2013 Act.
59. It is also the submission of the learned Amicus that, the
2013 provides that the acquisition shall be at the cost of the
acquiring body, that clearly speaks in favour of exemption from
the payment of court fees at least by the person whose land is
acquired under the said Act.
60. Section 95 of the 2013 Act is relevant to the point raised
above. It states that where the provisions of 2013 Act are put
in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any
fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any
Requiring Body, the charges of land incidental to such
acquisition shall be defrayed from or by the Requiring Body.
The section is very specific that the charges of land incidental
to such Acquisition shall be defrayed from the fund controlled
by local authority or by the Requiring Body. It does not speak
60 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
of the court fee that shall be paid by such local authority or
Requiring Body. It simply says about the compensation amount
and the administrative charges of the acquiring authority.
61. The last submission of the learned Amicus is that it
would be atrocious on the part of the State to impose court fee
in such matter when it is depriving a person of his property,
source of livelihood, displacing him from domicile, uprooting
from the point of his standing, transplanting his entire family
to an unknown destination and throwing his future to
uncertainty.
62. On charging the court fees in the State of Maharashtra
and Gujarat on reference applications under Section 18 of the
1894 Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Ambya
Kalya Mhatre through LRs Vs. The State of Maharashtra in
Civil Appeal No.7784 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [c] No.
20741 of 2009] decided on 12.09.2011 has suggested the
government in the following words :
"In all other States, ad valorem court fee is payable only when
an appeal is filed against the award of reference court, seeking
higher compensation and not in regard to the applications for
61 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
reference under section 18 of LA Act. Only in Maharashtra and
Gujrat, the land loser, are required to pay half of the ad
valorem court-fee while seeking reference to the civil court.
Most of the land owners are agriculturist. For many of them,
the only source of livelihood is taken away by the acquisition
of their lands. Though, the Collector is expected to award
compensation based on the market value, thereby forcing the
land-losers to seek references to civil court. In such cases, the
amount awarded by the Collector being comparatively small,
the requirement to pay ad-valorem court-fee on the
application causes irreparable hardship, forcing the land loser
to seek a lesser increase that what is warranted. The State
Government may therefore, consider giving appropriate relief
to the land losers by providing nominal fixed court-fee, on the
application for reference, instead of ad-valorem court fee."
63. In P. R. Shriramulu (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed in 15, that, "As pointed out earlier with reference to
the decisions of this court the State enjoys the widest latitude
where measure of economic regulations, are concerned. These
measures for fiscal and economic regulation involve an
evaluation of diverse and quite often conflicting economic
criteria, adjustment and balancing of various conflicting special
and an economic values and interests. It is for the state to
decide what economic and social policy it should pursue. It is
settled law that in view of the inherent complexity of the fiscal
adjustment, the court give a large discretion to the legislature
62 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
in the matter of its preferences of economic and social policies
and effectuate the chosen system in all possible and reasonable
ways....". In simple words it is the mandate of the law
enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex court in the above case, that
the courts should be slow in interfering in the economic or
fiscal policy pursued by the State.
64. We have discussed above, the discretion and powers of
the State to legislate on the court fees Section 46 of the
Maharashtra Court Fees Act, specifically provides for the
powers of the State to reduce and remit the court fees. Specific
provision of such a nature is explicit that unless the State
specifically exempt any type of suit or proceeding from the
payment of court fee, the court fees for the reference under
2013 Act is leviable.
65. So far as the interpretation of the relevant sections of
2013 are is concerned, we do not find the ambiguity in any of
the Sections of the said Act.
66. After having a detailed discussion on the provisions of
2013 and 1894 Act as regards to the reference to be made after
63 WP.6334-20 & ors.odt
the award is passed by the Collector, we are of the opinion that
the contention of the petitioners that court fee on reference
application under Section 96 of 2013 Act is exempted, is
incorrect. Hence, the interpretation of Section 96 of the 2013
Act made by the petitioners is liable to be discarded.
67. Before we part with the judgment, we appreciate and
acknowledge the sincere efforts and assistance extended by the
learned Amicus Curiae Mr. S.V. Adwant on the legal issue
involved in these petitions.
68. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find merit
in the petitions. Hence, the petitions stand dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
69. No orders as to costs.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
