Bombay High Court
Amol Vinayakrao Awachar And 5 ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
0302wp3070.18.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3070 OF 2018
(Amol Vinaykrao Awachar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others)
______________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
______________________________________________________________________________
Shri S.G. Joshi, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri V.A. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
-------
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 3, 2021
P.C. :
By presenting this writ petition, the petitioners
claim relief as granted by this Court by judgment
dated 14/2/2017 to the petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos.86/2000 and 2691/2000.
2) It is not in dispute that the lands of the
petitioners were acquired for public purpose upon
invocation of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and that all the petitioners have received
compensation. The point that the petitioners wish to
urge before us is that despite acquisition and
payment of compensation, the petitioners are still in
possession of the lands, which were acquired and
have been cultivating the same and that since such
lands have not been utilised for the purpose for
0302wp3070.18.odt 2/3
which the same were acquired, they are ready and
willing to give up the compensation amount that
they received in lieu of retention of the lands.
3) It is indeed true that the coordinate Bench by
its judgment dated 14/2/2017 made certain
directions for verification of position on the spot to
find out whether the lands of the petitioners in Writ
Petition Nos.86/2000 and 2691/2000 were utilised
or not. However, law is well settled that once a
particular land is acquired for a public purpose and
compensation is paid to the land owner, the land
vests free from all encumbrances in the State and
there is no obligation on the State to return the land
to the land owner; if the land is not utilised for the
very purpose it was acquired, such land can be
utilised for any other public purpose. If any
authority is required, one may refer to the decision
reported in AIR 2005 SC 492 (State of A.P. vs. Syed
Akbar). In view of such position in law settled by
the Supreme Court, we find no reason to grant relief
claimed in the writ petition.
4) Shri Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners, next contends that the petitioners would
be subjected to step-motherly treatment by the
respondents if reliefs, as prayed for, were not
granted.
0302wp3070.18.odt 3/3
5) If indeed some benefits have been given to
others by the State by an illegal act, the same can
never provide a cause of action for the petitioners to
move the Court and seek Mandamus on the
respondents to perform an illegal act. A Mandamus
can never be issued commanding the State to act
contrary to law. The decision reported in (1996) 9
SCC 309 (State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra) may be
referred to in this context. There is no merit in the
contention and accordingly, the same stands
overruled.
6) For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition
stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
khj
Kamal Digitally signed
by Kamal Jeswani
Jeswani Date: 2021.02.05
14:46:47 +0530
