Bombay High Court
Bhimrao Dagdu Kothare And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
938 WP 6796 OF 2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
938 WRIT PETITION NO.6796 OF 2021
1) Bhimrao s/o Dagdu Kothare,
Age 60 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Chandai Thombri, Tq.
Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
2) Sharda w/o Balaji Teple,
Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Chandai Thombri, Tq.
Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
3) Chaya Bhagwan Rawalkar,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Chandai Thombri, Tq.
Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
4) Omprakash Shivdas Dethe,
Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Chandai Thombri, Tq.
Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
5) Nandkishor Gajanan Pungale,
Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Chandai Thombri, Tq.
Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna.
6) Bhujangrao Daulat Thombare,
Age 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Chandai Thombri, Tq.
Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) Collector, Jalna,
Administrative Complex, Sy.No. 482,
Jalna 431203.
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2022 09:39:19 :::
938 WP 6796 OF 2021.odt
3) Executive Engineer, Jalna Minor Irrigation
Division, Jalna, Near Sambhaji Udyan,
Old Jalna, Jalna.
4) Sub Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition
Officer, Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist.
Jalna. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar
A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. A.S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 24.08.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
We have heard both the sides.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P. waives
service for the respondents/State and the learned advocate Mr.Sonpawale
waives service for the acquiring body/respondent No. 3. With the consent of
both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. The petitioners are the owners of lands at village Chandai Thombri,
Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. Some of their lands were acquired for an
irrigation project. A proposal was forwarded by the respondent No. 4/Land
Acquisition Officer for purchasing the remaining lands by direct purchase
according to the government resolution dated 12.05.2015. However, the
respondent No. 2-Collector refused the proposal and directed to go for
acquisition in terms of the regular mode of acquisition prescribed under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter 'the Act'). It is this
order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.
938 WP 6796 OF 2021.odt
4. The learned advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar for the petitioners would
point out that by virtue of provision of Section 108 of the Act, an option is
given to the owners of the lands to opt for a better method of acquisition
which would be beneficial to them. He would point out that as per the State
Government's policy, the petitioners would get 25% more compensation
than that would be payable in the normal course of acquisition. He would
submit that though the acquiring body had sent up a proposal which ought
to have been forwarded to the committee constituted in terms of the policy
of the Government under the Chairmanship of the Collector, the Collector
without assigning any reason has refused the proposal for direct purchase.
The order is illegal and may be quashed and set aside.
5. The learned advocate for the acquiring body submits that pursuant to
the request of the petitioners a proposal was forwarded for direct purchase.
6. The learned A.G.P. submits that though the proposal was received
from the acquiring body, the Collector has rightly refused to accept it. The
option contemplated under Section 108 of the Act is not available for the
petitioners. The government resolution only is an administrative instruction
between the government and its offices. The petitioners have no right to
resort to it and claim compensation by way of direct purchase.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners' lands are
affected by back waters of the irrigation project for which already the
acquisition had taken place.
8. There is also no dispute rather the fact has been specifically admitted
by the respondents in their affidavits in reply that a proposal for direct
purchase was duly forwarded to the Collector. There is a policy of the State
Government which prescribes the modalities in which such direct purchases
can take place. Section 108 of the Act apparently gives an option to the
affected families to avail inter alia better compensation under the State law
or the policy of the State.
938 WP 6796 OF 2021.odt
9. There can be no dispute about the fact that the policy of the State
Government as depicted in the resolution dated 12.05.2015 entitles the
owners to have better compensation than which they would get if the
normal process of acquisition is resorted to.
10. We cannot approve of one line order passed by the Collector ignoring
the proposal submitted by the acquiring body as also his subordinates for
going for the direct purchase by saying that the process should be
undertaken for acquisition under the Act. We cannot make out any reasons
as to why the Collector must have declined the proposal. Though an
affidavit in reply has been filed by the State, apart from the fact that no
subsequent grounds can be allowed to be added to support the order, even
no concrete reasons are forthcoming as to on what grounds the Collector has
rejected the proposal.
11. In view of the above state of affairs, we deem it appropriate to set
aside the order of the Collector and relegate the matter to him for taking
decision afresh in the light of the above observation.
12. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The Collector shall now reconsider the matter and shall pass appropriate
order in the light of the above observations. The decision shall be taken
within twelve weeks from today.
13. The Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
