Bombay High Court
Anil Laxmanrao Bhise vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 September, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
.. 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1053 Writ Petition No.12805 Of 2019
Anil Laxmanrao Bhise .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents
...
Mr Devidas R. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs M.A. Deshpande, Addl. G.P. for the Respondents - State
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9396 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12805 OF 2019
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
AND
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 09-09-2021
PER COURT : -
1. We have heard Mr Shelke, learned Advocate for the petitioner
for some time.
2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is challenging the
impugned award dated 27-02-2018. He is further seeking directions
that the proceedings, which are taken up under Land Acquisition Act,
1894, be declared as lapsed. The petitioner is further praying to
allow him to withdraw the amount of Rs.41,18,000/- along with
interest accrued thereon.
Gajanan
.. 2 ..
3. The Award in the present case appears to have been passed in
respect of the petitioner's land on 18-06-2000. The contention of the
petitioner is that the said Award was never communicated to him and
as the said Award is not communicated to him, the same is not
binding and would not come into effect. The further contention of
the petitioner is that the possession is not taken in accordance with
the provisions of the statute and as such, the same is illegal in the
eyes of law.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his
contentions relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
case of Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, reported in [2012 (9)
SCC 503].
5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as no
communication was made under Section 12 (2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, 'Act of 1894') the time does not
start running and, now, as the Act of 1894 has been repealed, notice
under Section 12 (2) cannot be issued. In view of that, at present,
the proceedings cannot sustain.
6. The further contention of the petitioner is that after the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Gajanan
.. 3 ..
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on
01-01-2014, the State does not have jurisdiction to decide any
proceedings under Section 243 of the Manual. Section 243 of the
Manual is pursuant to the Act of 1894. The same itself stands
repealed and as such, the determination on an application under
Section 243 of the Manual is void ab initio.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the
Award has been communicated to the petitioner. The reference can
be had to the letter dated 22-05-2003 issued by the Revenue Forest
Department to the petitioner. The same was pursuant to the
application given by the petitioner. The petitioner had given
application under Section 243 of the Manual. The same was in
respect of payment of ex gratia. According to the learned AGP, the
petitioner had already on his own volition moved for ex gratia
payment. Now, he is taking a somersault.
8. The determination of the amount is made. After the
application was filed by the petitioner invoking 243 of the Manual,
the petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No.1638 of 2007 before this
Court seeking directions to decide the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 243 of the Manual. This Court under its
order dated 20-06-2012 directed the State Government to decide the
Gajanan
.. 4 ..
said application. As the said application was not decided, the
petitioner filed a Contempt Petition bearing No.484 of 2014. The
same was disposed of on 05-12-2014. According to the learned AGP,
2018 is not a fresh Award, but only an ex gratia payment made in
tune with the application under Section 243 of the Manual.
9. One of the contention of the petitioner is that the amount of
compensation determined under the Award of 2000 is also not paid
to him. The learned AGP shall take instructions in that regard.
10. At this stage, prima facie we cannot fathom the submission of
the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner had no
knowledge of the Award. The petitioner had certainly constructive
knowledge of the Award. The correspondence made corroborates it.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1638 of 2007 had also referred to
the Award passed by the authority. Since the year 2000 the petitioner
is making grievance that the acquired property is a non-agricultural
property. The compensation has not been computed as such and so,
he has given an application under Section 243 of the Manual. The
petitioner was pursuing the said claim till the disposal of the
contempt petition and till decision of the application filed under
Section 243 of the Manual. The said application is decided in the year
2018. For the first time, in the year 2019, the petitioner raised a plea
Gajanan
.. 5 ..
that the respondent could not have entertained the application under
Section 243 of the Manual after the new Act came into force on 01-
01-2014.
11. The possession has also been given by the petitioner prior to
the passing of the Award. The Award of 2000 spells out the said
factum.
12. In light of the aforesaid facts, it would be difficult to
comprehend the submission of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that the respondents could not have decided the
application under Section 243 of the Manual. Section 243 of the
Manual is for ex gratia payment only. The application filed by the
petitioner is also for ex gratia payment and not for passing of a fresh
award.
13. Be that as it may, the learned AGP shall take instructions
whether the payment was made to the petitioner as per the Award of
2000 within two weeks.
14. Stand over to 23-09-2021.
[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Gajanan
