Mr. Shankarling @ Basaveshwar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6490 Bom

                                           1
                                                           11.wp-11074-17-5106-22.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          WRIT PETITION NO.11074 OF 2017

Shankarling @ Basaveshwar Chanbasappa
Bhogade & Anr.                                                ... Petitioners
           Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                               ... Respondents

                                       ....
                                      WITH
                          WRIT PETITION NO.5106 OF 2022

Limba @ Limbaji Dhulappa Laman (Rathod)
since deceased through L.Rs.                                  ... Petitioners
           Versus
The State of maharashtra & Ors.                               ... Respondents

                                  ....
Dr. Ramdas Sabban, Advocate a/w. Pravin A. Sabban, Shrikanth Kompelli
& Ms. Arundhati Sabban, for the Petitioners in both Writ Petitions.

Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in WP/11074/2017
and for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP/5106/2022.

Mr. M.P. Rao, Senior Counsel a/w. I.M. Khairdi, for Respondent No.7 in
WP/11074/2017 and for Respondent No.3 in WP/5106/2022.
                                  ....

                              CORAM :    R. D. DHANUKA AND
                                         M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE : 11th JULY, 2022

P.C. :

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length. The petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside

Deshmane(PS)

11.wp-11074-17-5106-22.odt

the order dated 1st June, 2017 annexed at Exhibit-H to the petition,

thereby rejecting the representation made by the petitioners. The

petitioners have also prayed for declaration that the impugned land

acquisition under Section 4 notification dated 7th November, 1957

and under Section 6 notification dated 25 th September, 1958 have

lapsed. However, in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners

and also across the bar, the petitioners have restricted their prayers

only to the extent that the valuation date in respect of the land

under acquisition be considered as 1st January, 2014 under Section

24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and

relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court including in

the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,

(2020) 8 SCC 129.

2. Though, it is not the specific case of the respondents that

the predecessors of the petitioners had donated the land in question

to the State Government, it is argued across the bar by the learned

A.G.P. that in view of the alleged donation from the predecessors of

the petitioners, Section 6 notification issued by the State

11.wp-11074-17-5106-22.odt

Government came to be withdrawn or given up.

3. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Rao, learned Senior

Counsel for the Solapur Municipal Corporation that there is gross

delay on the part of the petitioners to file this petition. The land has

already vested initially in the State Government and thereafter in

favour of the Corporation and thus at this stage this Court shall not

interfere with the acquisition process and shall not direct the

Municipal Corporation to pay any compensation to the petitioners

either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the provisions

of 2013 Act.

4. Since the State Government has urged before this Court

that the land was already vested in favour of the State Government

by the predecessors of the petitioners and in view thereof no

further steps including declaration of award under Section 11 of

the 1894 Act were taken by the State Government, we direct the

State Government to produce the records relating to the initiation

of acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question and

also to indicate whether the land in question was at all given by a

gift or donation to the State Government by the predecessors of the

11.wp-11074-17-5106-22.odt

petitioners. We also want to peruse the record for the purpose of

testing the argument of the learned A.G.P. that in view of such

alleged gift or donation from the predecessors of the petitioners in

favour of the Government, the acquisition proceedings were

dropped though notifications under Sections 4 & 6 came to be

issued by the State Government.

5. At the request of learned A.G.P., we grant three weeks'

time to produce such record and to assist this Court on the

questions posed by this Court in the earlier paragraphs of this order.

It is made clear that if such records are traceable the petitioners as

well as the Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to take

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO inspection of such record after giving 48 hours notice to learned DESHMANE

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO A.G.P..

DESHMANE Date: 2022.07.12 18:09:11 +0530

6. Place the matters on board under the caption "directions"

on 5th August, 2022, high on board.

                        (M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.)                           (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)


                      Deshmane (PS)