Hitesh Raman Rathi And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8547 Bom

                                                                                        (1)                                                 32.wp.5258.2022

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                                               WRIT PETITION NO.5258 OF 2022

                                     Hitesh Raman Rathi and others
                                                  Vs.
                      State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Akola and others
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                     Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. M. G. Sarda, Advocate for petitioners.
           Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4.


                                                                           CORAM :                      AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 29/08/2022

1. Heard Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petition challenges the order dated 8.7.2022 (pg. 16) whereby the application under Section 93 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 filed by the petitioner has been rejected (pgs.18 and 19). The only ground urged by Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the notification under Section 11(1)(A) was dated 13.12.2012 and the one under Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1999") was dated 13.7.2013, the sale deed dated 30.4.2014 in favour of the petitioners, would not be affected by (2) 32.wp.5258.2022

Section 12(1) of the Act of 1999. Since, no action as contemplated by Section 13(3) of the Act of 1999 was taken and the acquisition was withdrawn by the order of the Collector dated 9.7.2018 (pg.87), stress is laid upon the language of Section 12(1) of the Act of 1999 which contemplates that no agricultural land in the villages or areas specified in the notification under Section 11 shall, after publication of the notification in the Official Gazette be transferred, would mean that the prohibition is related only to agricultural lands and since the land of the petitioner stood already converted to non agricultural land as a Ginning and Pressing Factory was running therefrom the prohibition would not be attracted.

3. Mr. Patil, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4, submits that the contention would be incorrect for the reason that the expression "no agricultural land or areas specified in the notification" cannot be restricted to the agricultural land but the word "areas" would mean all the areas irrespective of the holdings of the areas listed in the notification under Section 11 and therefore, whether the areas under the notification is agricultural, non-agricultural, Government, Abadai or any other class occupancy of land that would have no bearing whatsoever on the applicability of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act.

(3) 32.wp.5258.2022

4. Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a day's time to place judgments on record, considering which, list the matter tomorrow i.e. on 30.8.2022.

JUDGE

Sarkate.

Digitally signed byANANT R SARKATE Signing Date:29.08.2022 17:59