Bombay High Court
Bhanudas Aaba Argade Dead Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 March, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
(1) 1059-wp-2195-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2195 OF 2022
BHANUDAS AABA ARGADE DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS GOVIND
BHANUDAS ARGADE AND OTHERS ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. S. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 01st MARCH, 2022.
PER COURT:-
1. The learned counsel for petitioners and
learned A.G.P. on written instructions submit that,
land of petitioners was acquired under Award dated
08.03.1996.
2. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel states
that, the award dated 08.03.1996 in respect of land
of petitioners bearing Sy. No. 256/1 admeasuring
40R situated at village Kolhewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar is illegal and bad in law and
deserves to be quashed and set aside as it is not
passed within two years from the date of
publication of declaration U/Sec. 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act (for short "L. A. Act"). The
learned counsel relies on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in a case of Mahesh
(2) 1059-wp-2195-2022
Shivaji Dighe and another Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others reported in 2004(4) Mh. L. J. 614.
3. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel further
submits that, another Division Bench of this Court
in Writ Petition No. 1003 of 2013 vide judgment and
order dated 20th June 2013 has followed the same
course and set aside the award to the extent of
petitioners in the said writ petition.
4. The learned counsel submits that, the
petitioners herein have not filed any reference
U/Sec. 18 of the L. A. Act, nor they have been paid
amount of compensation pursuant to the award
08.03.1996 till date.
5. Mr. Tambe, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader submits that, in the earlier
judgment of this Court in a case of Mahesh Shivaji
Dighe and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others referred to supra, this Court has not
considered that subsequently corrigendum was
published on 12.07.1994 and 09.07.1994 that would
explain the period of time within which award
U/Sec. 11 has to be passed.
6. We have considered the submissions
canvassed by learned counsel for respective
parties.
7. It is not disputed that, the award
pursuant to which the land of the present
(3) 1059-wp-2195-2022
petitioners was acquired was subject matter of
consideration by this Court in a case of Mahesh
Shivaji Dighe and another Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others referred to supra, so also in Writ
Petition No. 1003 of 2013. This Court had set
aside the award on the ground that, same is not
passed within a period of two years of declaration
U/Sec. 6 of the L. A. Act. In the present case,
the petitioners' land being acquired pursuant to
the same award shall naturally receive the same
fate.
8. There is an additional ground to consider
the case of petitioners. The petitioners state
that, till date petitioners have not been paid any
compensation amount pursuant to the award dated
08th March, 1996, in view of Sec. 24 (2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Act (for short "Right to Fair
Compensation Act") stands lapsed. Though the same
is not a ground raised in the present writ
petition, but petitioners have stated that they
have not received any amount of compensation till
date pursuant to the said award, relying on the
said statement the provisions of Sec. 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation Act can be made
applicable.
9. In the light of the above, the writ
petition is allowed. The award dated 08.03.1996 to
the extent it relates to the land of petitioners is
(4) 1059-wp-2195-2022
quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the said award
being quashed and set aside, petitioners may
approach the revenue authorities for correction of
mutation entry.
(S. G. DIGE) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/March-2022
