Bombay High Court
Sunil Bhimrao Patil And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 28 July, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
(1) 943-wp-8031-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
943 WRIT PETITION NO.8031 OF 2021
SUNIL BHIMRAO PATIL AND ANOTHER ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. N. R. Thorat h/f Mr. Ravindra K. Shingnapure,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. V. S. Choudhari, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 28th JULY, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1. The petitioners seek directions against the
respondents to decide application dated 06.10.2016 and to pass
Award as per the joint measurement dated 24.07.1996.
2. The learned counsel submits that, the
joint measurement was conducted in the year 1996.
The Award was passed in the year 1999 in favour of
the parents of petitioners. The petitioners had
filed Reference seeking enhancement of the
compensation. Against the order of the Reference
Court, petitioners have filed First Appeal before
this Court. The First Appeal is pending.
3. The learned counsel further submits that,
petitioners have made an application in the year
2016 to pass fresh Award as per measurement for the
fruit bearing trees, the pipeline and other
appurtenances on the land. The respondents are
bound to consider the request of petitioners. The
delay and laches cannot be the sole ground for
rejection of the claim of petitioners. The learned
(2) 943-wp-8031-2021
counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in
a case of Vidya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh reported in 2020 (2) SCC 569.
4. We have also heard the learned A.G.P. for
respondents.
5. The joint measurement was conducted in the
year 1996. The Award came to be passed in favour
of the parents of petitioners in the year 1999.
The petitioners not satisfied with the amount of
compensation paid, preferred a Land Acquisition
Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The same is decided by the Reference Court.
The petitioners thereafter filed an Appeal before
this Court and the same is pending. The
petitioners could have raised all the aspects in
the Reference that was filed for the enhancement of
the compensation, of which the Appeal is pending.
The parents of petitioners did not file any
application and after their death petitioners have
filed the same.
6. In a case of Vidya Devi Vs. The State of
Himachal Pradesh (supra) the Apex Court observed
that the right to property is a Constitutional
right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India and nowadays it has been brought within the
contures of human right. The legitimate claim of
the party cannot be negatived only on the ground of
delay and laches.
7. In the present case, according to
petitioners, the Award is passed in favour of the
(3) 943-wp-8031-2021
parents of petitioners. The petitioners had filed
Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. After
disposal of Reference, First Appeal is filed and
the same is pending before this Court. All
legitimate grounds were available for the
petitioners in the Reference filed before the
Reference court. The proceedings were already
initiated by petitioners. After death of the
original land owners, petitioners have filed an
application in the year 2016 for passing a fresh
Award in respect of the alleged fruit bearing trees
on the same land for which the Award is passed and
petitioners have already filed Reference and
against which an Appeal is also pending before this
Court.
8. The separate writ petition would not be
tenable. The petitioners cannot take up a multiple
proceedings with regard to the same subject matter.
9. In light of the above, we are not inclined
to entertain the writ petition.
10. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(R. N. LADDHA) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/July-2021
