Bombay High Court
Shri. Shankar Narayan Dhumal And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 7 October, 2021
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, N. R. Borkar
28-cwp-11639-16.doc
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2021.10.08
17:07:32
+0500
WRIT PETITION NO. 11639 OF 2016
Shankar N. Dhumal and ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents
----------------
Mr. Arjun Kadam i/b Muhammad S. Gaya for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
----------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 07.10.2021.
P.C.
1] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2] The petitioners approached this court by raising a
ground that the acquisition proceedings in respect of Gat
No.370 and 371/3 admeasuring 0 Hectare 29 R and O H. 80 R
situated at Mouje-Mukhai, Taluka - Shirur, District Pune have
lapsed in view of provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is further prayed
that directions may be issued to the respondents to cancel
the entries of lapse acquisition in 7/12 extract of Gat No.370
and 371/3 and to restore the position before acquisition
proceedings.
3] The issue involved in the present petition was pending
before the Apex Court and thus, the petition was adjourned
Dinesh Sherla 1/4
28-cwp-11639-16.doc
sine die and the parties were permitted to mention the
matter as soon as the issue is decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
4] It may not be out of place to state that the petitioners
were ofered compensation against the acquisition of their
lands and the documents to that efect are placed on record
at page 37. It is not in dispute that the petitioners declined to
accept the compensation.
5] The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered the issue
involved in the present petition against the petitioner by it's
judgment delivered on 6.3.2020 in the case of Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and ors. -
(2020) 8 SCC 129. He invited our attention to the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and more particularly
paragraph 366 where ultimate conclusions are drawn by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The same reads as under:
"366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in
case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under
the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of fve years excluding the period covered
by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall
continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013
Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between
Dinesh Sherla 2/4
28-cwp-11639-16.doc
possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or
as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes
place where due to inaction of authorities for fve years
or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor compensation
has been paid. In other words, in case possession has
been taken, compensation has not been paid then there
is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid,
possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit
of compensation in court. The consequence of non-
deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it
has not been deposited with respect to majority of land
holdings then all benefciaries (landowners) as on the
date of notifcation for land acquisition under Section 4 of
the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case
the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 has not been fulflled, interest under Section 34
of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for fve years or more,
compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
"landowners" as on the date of notifcation for land
acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of
the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to
non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in
court. The obligation to pay is complete by
tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The
landowners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of
Dinesh Sherla 3/4
28-cwp-11639-16.doc
Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the
1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by
drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award
has been passed on taking possession under Section 16
of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no
divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act,
as once possession has been taken there is no lapse
under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2)
providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are
applicable in case authorities have failed due to their
inaction to take possession and pay compensation for
fve years or more before the 2013 Act came into force,
in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with
authority concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be
excluded in the computation of fve years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give
rise to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question
the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.
(Emphasis supplied).
6] In view of above, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
Dinesh Sherla 4/4
