Bombay High Court
Varsha Moreshwar Gharat And Ors vs The States Maharashtra Through ... on 24 March, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. M. Modak
bdp
1
wp-2085.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2085 OF 2021
1. Mrs. Varsha Moreshwar Gharat
Age- 40, Occ.:- Housewife/Agriculturist
R/o- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad.
2. Mr. Laxman Dhaklya Tandel
Age- 73 Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad.
3. Mr. Prakash Parshuram Kadu
Age- 51, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sonari , Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad.
4. Mr. Jitendra Gopinath Tandel
Age- 37, Occ.:- Rickshwa Driver/Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
5. Mr. Kishor Pandurag Tandel
Age- 46, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
6. Mr. Bhargav Mahadeo Kadu
Age- 68, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sonari ,Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
7. Mr. Chandrakant Krushna Kadu
Age- 47, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Sonari,Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
8. Mr. Gajanan Trimbak Patil
Age- 44, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Dhutum ,Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
9. Mr. Bhau Kundlik Thakur
Age- 70, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
bdp
2
wp-2085.21.doc
10. Mr. Narendra Pandurag Tandel
Age-44, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Post-J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
11. Mr. Kishor Laxman Tandel
Age- 49, Occ.:- Rickshaw Driver
R/O- Karal ,Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
12. Mrs. Manisha Dnyaneshwar Tandel
Age- 52, Occ.:- House Wife
R/O- Karal ,Taluka:- Uran, Dist:- Raigad
13. Mr. Hari Paktya Tandel
Age- 78, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Karal ,Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
14. Mr. Bhalchandra Gopinath Kadu
Age-55, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Karal,Taluka:- Uran, Dist:- Raigad
15. Mr. Janardhan sahadev Gharat
Age- 57, Occ.:- Agriculturist/Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
16. Mr. Vijay Kashinath Gharat
Age-65, Occ.:- Retired
R/O- Jaskhar, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
17. Mr. Balaram Pandurang Kadu
Age- 50, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Sonari, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
18. Mr. Devidas Gopal Gharat
Age- 73, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Ranjanpada, Post- Jasai,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
19. Mrs. Kusum Maruti Tandel
Age- 62, Occ.:- Housewife/Agriculturist
R/O- Uran Kotnaka,
bdp
3
wp-2085.21.doc
Taluka:-Uran , Dist:- Raigad
20. Mr. Jitendra Balaram Tandel
Age- 42, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sonari, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
21. Mr. Yashwant Krushna Kadu
Age- 76, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
22. Mr. Rajesh Shantaram [email protected]
Age- 49, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
23. Mr. Vishwanath Dattatrey Gharat
Age- 34, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
24. Mr. Namdev Rambhau Gharat
Age- 64, Occ.:- Agriculturist & Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
25. Mr. Shantaram Arjun Gharat
Age- 60, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
26. Mr. Chandrakant Dattatreya Tandel
Age- 48, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
27. Mr. Ramchandra Arjun Kadu
Age- 69, Occ.:- Retired
R/O- Sonari, Taluka:-Uran, Dist:-Raigad
28. Mr. Mahesh [email protected] Tandel
Age- 27, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Karal, Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
bdp
4
wp-2085.21.doc
29. Mr. Adhik Narayan Gawand
Age-75, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
30. Mr. Kalpesh Chandrakant Thakur
Age- 36, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Jaskhar, Post- J.N.P.T.,
Taluka:- Uran , Dist:- Raigad
31. Mr. Devanand Anant Tandel
Age-40, Occ.:- Agriculturist & Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
32. Mr. Narayan Krushna Gharat
Age- 52, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Sawarkhar, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
33. Mr. Parshuram Kana Mhatre
Age- 55, Occ.:- Housewife/Agriculturist
R/O- Sonari, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
34. Mr. Ramdas Kasha Mhatre
Age- 67, Occ.:- Retired
R/O- Sonari , Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
35. Mr. Govind Namdev Thakur
Age- 58, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Dhutum, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
36. Mr. Hirji Gangaram Gharat
Age - 70 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/O- Sus Road, Behind Datta Mandir, Pune
Village - Panje
37. Mr. Lakhpati Kamalya Bhoir
Age- 33, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Dhutum, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
38. Mr. Sandip Balaram Patil
Age- 49, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Uran Kotnaka, Taluka:- Uran , Dist:-Raigad
bdp
5
wp-2085.21.doc
39. Mr. Pandurang Balaram Patil
Age- 56, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Dongri, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
40. Mr. Pramod Harishchandra Patil
Age- 32, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Panje, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
41. Mr. Pandurang Narayan Patil
Age- 59, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Panje, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
42. Mr. Ganesh Sitaram Patil
Age- 61, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Dongri, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
43. Mr. Dynaneshwar Manohar Patil
Age- 52, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Dongri, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
44. Mr. Pandurang Balaram Patil
Age- 56, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Dongri, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
45. Mr. Vilas Baburav Patil
Age- 66, Occ.:- Retired
R/O- Dongri, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
46. Mr. Gajanan [email protected] Mhatre
Age- 52, Occ.:- Retired
R/O- Funde, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
47. Mr. Bhupesh Sudhir Thakur
Age- 37, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Funde, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
48. Mr. Jitendra [email protected] Mhatre
Age- 49, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Funde, Taluka:- Uran, Dist:-Raigad
49. Mrs. Minal Ekanath Gaikwad
Age- 32, Occ.:- Service/Agriculturist
R/O- Rodpali, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
bdp
6
wp-2085.21.doc
50. Mr. Minath Natha Bhoir
Age- 55, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Khidukpada, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
51. Mr. Vijay Janardan Thakur
Age- 55, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Rodpali, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
52. Mr. Harishchandra Anant Thakur
Age- 40, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Rodpali, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
53. Mr. Dashrath shivdas Ulavekar
Age- 58, Occ.:- Civil Contractor
R/O- Rodpali, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
54. Mr. Balaram Kashinath Bhoir
Age- 65, Occ.:- Agriculturist
R/O- Khidukpada, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
55. Mr. Hiraman Ladkya Ulwekar
Age- 69, Occ.:- Civil Agriculturist
R/O- Khidukpada, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
56. Mr. Ramesh [email protected] Bhoir
Age- 28, Occ.:- Civil Contractor
R/O- Nawade, Taluka:- Panvel, Dist:-Raigad
57. Mr. Shivdas Aambaji Dhamale
Age- 41, Occ. Agriculturist/Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Chinchpada, Post- Wadghar,
Tal. Panvel, Dist- Raigad
58. Mr. Ganpat Kalya Gavand
Age- 61, Occ. Agriculturist/Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Chinchpada, Post- Wadghar,
Tal. Panvel, Dist- Raigad
59. Dilip Kisan Keni
Age- 42, Occ. Business
R/o. Chinchpada, Post- Wadghar,
Tal. Panvel, Dist- Raigad
bdp
7
wp-2085.21.doc
60. Mr. Bugnabai Kamlakar Gondhali
Age-70, Occ. Housewife/Agriculturist
R/o. Motha Khanda, Tal. Panvel, Dist- Raigad
61. Mr. [email protected] Dharma koli
Age- 62, Occ. Agriculturist/Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Ganeshpuri, Post- Ulwe,
Tal. Panvel, Dist- Raigad
62. Balkrushna Aatmaram Patil
Age- 60, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Ganeshpuri, Post- Ulwe,
Tal. Panvel, Dist- Raigad
63. Mr. Sadanand Shivram Thakur
Age- 60, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
64. Mr. Rajesh Madhukar Thakur
Age- 48, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
65. Mr. Pralhad Harishchandra Thakur
Age- 47, Occ. Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
66. Mr. Shrikant [email protected] Thakur
Age- 47, Occ. Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
67. Mr. [email protected] Balaram Thakur
Age- 55, Occ. Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
68. Mr. Dipak Vishanu Thakur
Age- 58, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. 201, Shiv Palace,
Gawand Bag, Upwan(West),
Taluka & District- Thane 58,
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
69. Mr. Ranjit Baburav Thakur
Age- 34, Occ. Bussiness
bdp
8
wp-2085.21.doc
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
70. Mr. Printesh Ashok Thakur
Age- 32, Occ. Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
71. Mr. Ramesh Vithal Thakur
Age- 67, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
72. Mr. Anant Sitaram Thakur
Age- 65, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
73. Mr. Bapu Ramji Thakur
Age- 71, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Dhutum, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
74. Mr. Yamuna Kashinath Thakur
Age- 71, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Ulwe Gaon, Tal. Panvel, Dist- Raigad
75. Mr. Ravindra Tukaram Gharat
Age- 69, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. B/16/14, Sector-7, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigd
76. Mr. Somnath Aatmaram Patil
Age- 79, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Dongri, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
77. Mr. Ganesh Balakrushna Patil
Age- 50, Occ. Agriculturist
R/o. Jasai, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
78. Mr. Narayan [email protected] Thakur
Age- 55, Occ. Service/Agriculturist
R/o. Jasai, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad
79. Mr. Vishawnath Laxman Mhatre
Age-52, Occ. Agri/ Service
R/o. Jasai, Tal. Uran, Dist- Raigad. ... Petitioners
bdp
9
wp-2085.21.doc
Versus
1. The States Maharashtra
Through Its secretary
Revenue Department
Through Government Pleader
Office, PWD Building, High court, Mumbai
2. The Collector, Raigad-Alibaug
Taluka Alibaug, District-Raigad
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
City and Industrial Development Corporation
State of Maharashtra, having registered address
Nirmal Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Nariman Point,
Mumbai- 400 021.
4. The Additional Chief Executive Officer (II)
CIDCO Bhavan, 2nd Floor, CBD Belapur,
New Bombay 400 614.
5. Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer)
Metro Center-1, Uran, Sector-14
Engineer Division, Dronagiri Node,
CIDCO Nodal Office, Bokadveera,
Taluka Uran, District-Raigad.
6. Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer)
Metro Center-1, Panvel, CIDCO Samaj Mandir,
1st Floor, Near Bandiya High School Sector-18
New Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District-Raigad.
7. Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer)
Metro Center-3, Panvel, CIDCO Samaj Mandir,
1st Floor, Near Bandiya High School Sector-18
New Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District-Raigad. ... Respondents
******
Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the State-Respondent.
Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7
******
bdp
10
wp-2085.21.doc
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 9th FEBRUARY, 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th MARCH, 2022
JUDGMENT (Per R.D. Dhanuka, J.) :-
. Rule. Mr. Kalel, learned counsel for the State waives service.
Mr.Hegde, learned counsel for the CIDCO waives service. By consent of
parties, petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
nos. 3 to 7 (i) The Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director, CIDCO, (ii)
The Additional Chief Executive Officer (II)/Joint Managing Director,
CIDCO, (iii) Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer), (iv)
Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer), (v) Deputy Collector
(Special Land Acquisition Officer), (vi) Deputy Collector (Special Land
Acquisition Officer) and (vii) Deputy Collector (Special Land Acquisition
Officer) to deposit the decretal amount with interest due and payable under
the Land Acquisition Act, with all consequential benefits, with the
Reference Court within two weeks from the date of the order.
3. The petitioners also seek an order and direction against the
respondent nos. 3 to 7 to disclose the names of the officers who are
responsible for not depositing the decretal amount and to disclose the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
amount which is liable to be deposited as per order passed by the Reference
Court in this Court by filing the affidavit before this Court and for other
reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ
petition are as follows :-
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 to 36 have their
respective lands within Village Karal, Taluka Uran. Petitioner Nos. 37 to 42
have their respective land within Village Panje, Taluka Uran. Petitioner Nos.
43 to 45 have their respective land within Village Dongri, Taluka Uran.
Petitioner Nos. 46 to 48 have their respective land within the Village Funde,
Taluka Uran.
5. The petitioner nos.49 to 56 have their respective lands within the
village Road Rodpali, Taluka Panvel. The petitioner nos.57 and 62 have
their respective lands within the village Wadghar, Kopar & Bambavi, Taluka
Panvel. The petitioner nos.63 to 64 have their respective lands within the
village Dhutum, Taluka Uran. The petitioner nos.65 to 72 have their
respective lands within the village Shemtikhar, Taluka Uran. The petitioner
nos.73 to 79 have their lands within the village Jasai, Taluka Uran
respectively. The petitioners are the farmers whose lands are acquired by
the respondent nos.5 to 7 by issuing notifications under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act dated 24th September 1986, 25th July 1991, 21st
October 1991, 22nd May 1997 and 22nd July 1999 for 'New Bombay
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
Project'.
6. The respondent nos.3 and 4 i.e. CIDCO authority is acting as an
Agent and acquiring body of the State Government set up under Section
13A of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the
MRTP Act"). It is the case of the petitioners that irrespective of any
arrangement between the CIDCO and the State Government, they are bound
to pay the amount as per the order passed by this Court.
7. The State Government declared its intention to set up a new town to
reduce the pressure on Mumbai city and by invoking the powers under
Section 113A of the MRTP Act, notified around 96 villages for setting up
the city of New Bombay and took various steps so as to commence the
acquisition on a mass scale in respect of the large area required for setting
up New Bombay. It is the case of the petitioners that, pursuant to the
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the State
Government, possession of the lands of the petitioners was taken and
handed over to the CIDCO as a planning authority. The development and
sale of the acquired land have been carried out by the CIDCO.
8. On 18th September 1989, an award was declared by Special Land
Acquisition Officer (SLAO). The petitioners filed reference under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said reference, the CIDCO made an
application on 7th April 2004 contending that they were the beneficiaries of
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
the acquisition and on the basis of the agreement made by them with the
State of Maharashtra, compensation will be payable by the CIDCO. The
CIDCO relied upon Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and
contended that they were a necessary party to the Land Acquisition
Reference filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act. By an order dated 27 th October 2004, the said application made by the
CIDCO was however, rejected by the Reference Court.
9. On 7th April 2008, the State of Maharashtra filed an application
contending that the CIDCO being the acquiring body was a necessary party
to the said reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
petitioners however, opposed the said application filed by the State of
Maharashtra on various grounds including the ground that the CIDCO was
not the acquiring body. The acquisition was not done by the State of
Maharashtra at the instance of the CIDCO. By an order dated 29 th
September 2008, the Reference Court allowed the application filed by the
State of Maharashtra and directed one of the original claimants who had
made a reference to add CIDCO as opponent no.2 in Land Acquisition
Reference No. 620 of 2000.
10. The said original claimant Percival Joseph Pareira challenged the said
order dated 29th September 2008 passed by the Reference Court by
preferring a writ petition in this Court. By judgment dated 7th November
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
2009, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition
filed by the said original claimant. Being aggrieved by the said order passed
by the learned Single Judge, the CIDCO preferred Letters Patent Appeal
No.184 of 2010 in this Court. By judgment dated 6 th March 2013, the
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal
against the said judgment dated 7th November 2009 delivered by the learned
Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the original claimant
Percival Joseph Pareira.
11. The Reference Court allowed the claims made by 30 petitioners by
various judgments delivered during the period between 14 th November 2017
and 27th December 2018. Those 30 petitioners have filed applications for
execution of the order passed by the Reference Court. The orders passed by
the Reference Court granting relief to those 30 petitioners have not been
challenged by the State of Maharashtra. Those execution applications are
pending before the Executing Court.
12. In respect of 27 petitioners, the State of Maharashtra has filed First
Appeals impugning the order passed by the Reference Court in this Court.
Those 27 appeals are pending before this Court. Those 27 petitioners have
filed applications for seeking execution of orders passed by the Reference
Court. The State Government has not obtained any stay order in those
pending First Appeals against the order passed by the Reference Court.
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
13. In respect of 30 petitioners, this Court directed the State Government
to deposit the decreetal amount in various First Appeals filed by the State
Government while admitting those First Appeals. The State of Maharashtra
however, did not comply with the said orders passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in these First Appeals. Those 30 petitioners have filed
applications for execution of the order passed by the Reference Court,
which are still pending. In none of the execution applications filed by the
petitioners, CIDCO is impleaded as a party.
14. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention
to various exhibits annexed to the petition including one of the orders
passed by the Reference Court, the order passed by the learned Single Judge
rejecting the application filed by CIDCO seeking impleadment in the
reference application, the order passed by the Reference Court allowing the
application filed by the State Government seeking impleadment of CIDCO,
the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the order
passed by the Division bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal filed by
the CIDCO.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the charts
annexed at exhibits 'A', 'E' and 'I' furnishing the details of the Land
Acquisition References, the execution applications filed by each of the
petitioners, the First Appeals filed by the State Government in some of the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
matters which are pending with regard to which no stay of the orders passed
by the Reference Court has been granted and also the details of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in some of the appeals filed
by the State of Maharashtra granting conditional stay of deposit but not
complied with by the State of Maharashtra.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the
order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application
No.3044 of 2017 in First Appeal No.1095 of 2017 filed by the State of
Maharashtra seeking stay of the order passed by the Reference Court
awarding additional compensation to one of the petitioners. By the said
order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, this Court granted
stay of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the condition that
the applicant shall deposit the entire amount with interest in the Reference
Court, on or before 5th October 2019, making it clear that in the event of
non compliance with the conditional order, the civil application shall stand
dismissed without reference to the Court. The original claimant in that
matter was granted liberty to prefer an application for withdrawal of
further amount however, making it clear that such application would be
decided on its own merits.
17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners are the farmers and though their lands have been acquired long
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
back and they have succeeded before the Reference Court, neither the State
Government nor the CIDCO has deposited any amount in so far as these
petitioners are concerned, though execution applications filed by the
petitioners are pending. He submits that in several cases, though the
learned Single Judge of this Court had granted conditional stay in favour of
the State of Maharashtra on the condition of the State of Maharashtra
depositing the enhanced amount awarded by the Reference Court, the
State Government did not deposit any amount till date. He submits that
though in some of the matters, the State Government filed First Appeals
impugning the order passed by the Reference Court in this Court, the State
Government neither moved those appeals for admission nor pressed the
interim applications for seeking stay of the order passed by the Reference
Court so far.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to a chart
annexed at Exhibit 'M' to the writ petition and would submit that in 43
cases, the State Government has deposited approximately Rs. 36 crores in
respect of various orders passed by the Reference Court upon CIDCO
depositing those amounts with the State Government. However in respect
of these petitioners, neither the State Government deposited any amount
with the Reference Court nor in the pending First Appeals filed by the State
Government impugning the order passed by the Reference Court in some of
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
the cases nor any amount is deposited by the CIDCO with the State
Government to enable the State Government to deposit the decreetal amount
either with the Executing Court or before this Court in those pending First
Appeals.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
proposal dated 16th December 2019 submitted by the Collector, Raigad to
the CIDCO referring to the decreetal amount directed to be deposited by
this Court in First Appeal (Stamp) No.1573 of 2019 vide order dated 17 th
July 2019 in the sum of Rs.26,23,763/-. He submits that by the said
proposal, the CIDCO was asked to deposit the said amount. He relied
upon another such direction issued by the Collector vide letter dated 1 st
October 2020 calling upon the CIDCO to deposit the amount with the
Collector to enable the Collector to comply with the order passed by this
Court. He submits that in the said letter, the Collector had clearly
mentioned that the deposit of the said amount by the CIDCO was
mandatory. The interest liability on the compensation amount directed to
be paid to the claimants was mounting day by day. The CIDCO was
further informed that the property of the State Government would be
attached if the amount directed to be paid by the Reference Court were not
paid to the claimants.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
complaint dated 29th January 2021 filed by the petitioners to the
Collector- Raigad against the CIDCO and various Government Officers
who were concerned with the payment of compensation to the petitioners as
awarded by the Reference Court. By the said letter, the petitioners
requested the CIDCO to deposit the amount with interest with the State
Government.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
judgment dated 6th March 2013 delivered by the Division Bench of this
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.184 of 2010 filed by the CIDCO
impugning the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.1211 of 2019. He
submits that in the said proceedings, it was specifically contended by the
CIDCO that they were the beneficiaries of the acquisition and on the
basis of the agreement made by them with the State of Maharashtra,
compensation would be payable by the CIDCO. He submits that the CIDCO
had also pressed in service Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 while contending that they were necessary parties to the land
acquisition proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
communication dated 9th February 2021 from the Deputy Collector to the
learned Advocate for the petitioners under the provisions of the Right to
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
Information Act, 2005 informing about the proposal sent by the office of
Collector to the CIDCO for depositing the amount in case of these
petitioners. He submits that though the proposals were sent by the office of
the Collector in the year 2018-19, no amount has been deposited by the
CIDCO in respect of these petitioners till date.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
letter dated 3rd February 2021 from the CIDCO to the Deputy Collector
depositing a sum of Rs.8,56,66,453/- with the Deputy Collector in respect
of the acquisition of various lands in village Bokadvira where the execution
applications filed by other claimants were pending and though the First
Appeals were filed in the year 2020. He submits that though there was no
stay granted by this Court in those First Appeals upon the State
Government depositing the amount as a condition precedent, the said
amount of Rs.8,56,66,453/- has been deposited by CIDCO with the State
Government pending those First Appeals.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
averments made by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Metro Centre
No.3, Panvel in the affidavit-in-reply notarized on 9 th April 2021 and more
particularly paragraphs 2 to 6 and would submit that the State Government
vide Notification dated 12th February 2008, has directed the CIDCO to
arrange for and to pay the land acquisition amount as well as enhanced
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
compensation amount payable as per the Court decree in respect of the said
'Navi Mumbai Project' for which the lands were acquired by the State
Government for CIDCO as a planning authority and the same having been
handed over to the CIDCO.
25. It is submitted that the State Government has clearly stated that the
representations of the petitioners received by the office of the Deputy
Collector regarding non deposit of the amount of enhanced compensation
had been sent to the CIDCO and as soon as the enhanced compensation
would be received by his office from CIDCO, the same would be deposited
in this Court. The Deputy Collector has already scrutinized the proposal
received from the petitioners and the same has been sent to the CIDCO for
compliance. He invited our attention to the chart annexed by the Deputy
Collector at Exhibit 'B' to the said affidavit in respect of some of the
petitioners.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention also to the
affidavit-in-reply dated 30th March 2021 filed by the Deputy Collector,
Metro Central No.1, Panvel and more particularly paragraphs 3 to 8
thereof and would submit that the State Government has clearly admitted
that vide Notification dated 12th February 2008, the State Government had
directed the CIDCO to take active participation for the purpose of payment
of enhanced compensation for the land acquired by the State Government
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
on account of CIDCO for the said project w.e.f. 1 st April 2008. The State
Government has accordingly directed the CIDCO to arrange for and to pay
land acquisition amount as well as the enhanced compensation amount
payable as per the Court decree passed by the Reference Court for the said
project. The office of the Deputy Collector has already scrutinized the
proposals seeking enhanced compensation and has already sent to CIDCO
for compliance as per the Government Resolution dated 12 th February 2008.
The said proposals are pending compliance and as soon as the amount of
compensation would be received by his office from CIDCO, the same
would be deposited in the Court.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
averments made by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Metro
Centre No.1 affirmed on 21st September 2021 and more particularly
paragraphs 2 and 4 and would submit that it is admitted by the Deputy
Collector that his office has compromised various land acquisition
references in Lok Adalat. As per the Resolution, office of the Deputy
Collector has sent proposal for payment of decretal amount to CIDCO
through the office of the Collector, Raigad. He submits that those 8
proposals though sent to the CIDCO by the office of the Collector are still
pending before the CIDCO for payment.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
averments made in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the additional affidavit filed
by the petitioners on 21st September 2021 and would submit that during
the pendency of this petition, the CIDCO has deposited the amount in the
reference matters which are decided subsequent to the land acquisition
awards made in favour of the petitioners. Though in some matters, no
deposit order is passed by this Court, the CIDCO has deposited the amount.
Though this Court has passed orders in various First Appeals filed by the
State Government arising out of orders of Reference Court in favour of the
petitioners, granting conditional stay, the CIDCO has not deposited any
amount with the State Government to enable the State Government to
deposit such decretal amount in this Court or before the Reference Court.
29. It is submitted that the CIDCO has thus acted in a selective manner
and has acted biased against the petitioners. The CIDCO committed
violation of their statutory duties and caused injustice to the petitioners who
are awaiting for compensation for more than 25 years. He submits that such
selective approach adopted by the Officer of CIDCO is required to be dealt
with in a very harsh manner and that this Court should take an action on the
erring Officers of CIDCO under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay In
Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
affidavit-in-reply filed by the CIDCO affirmed on 8th April 2021 and more
particularly in paragraphs 5, 7, 9 to 15 and 17. It is submitted that it is the
case of the CIDCO that the CIDCO has initiated to release the payments
of the matters settled in Lok Adalat and in the last three years, an amount of
Rs.106.1 crores has been paid in total 496 cases. Even for the current year
of 2020-21, almost 200 cases are pending under process. It is the case of
the CIDCO that the CIDCO has around 1200 cases pending and as per
the fund availability and cash flow and looking at the other prime projects,
the payments are being released.
31. It is submitted that the stand taken by the CIDCO in the affidavit-in-
reply that adequate funds are not available with the office of the CIDCO for
distribution of the enhanced compensation and that available funds are
required for the purpose of developing the prime projects such as Navi
Mumbai International Project and many others is totally frivolous. He
submits that the CIDCO has not indicated in the entire affidavit-in-reply as
to why the CIDCO has not deposited the amount in respect of the petitioners
till date though in most of the cases, this Court had granted a conditional
stay or where no appeals are filed by the State Government.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the order
dated 1st September 2021 passed by this Court in this writ petition
recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
and the CIDCO. The CIDCO made a statement that certain claims are
processed in so far as these petitioners are concerned. There is paucity of
cash flow and therefore, there is a delay in depositing the amounts. In the
eventuality, there is a delay in depositing the amounts, the claimants would
be entitled to claim interest on the said amounts. This Court recorded the
statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 7
including the CIDCO that he would make a statement as to when the
decreetal amount would be deposited as he is not updated about the
development in the office.
33. This Court made it clear that it does not agree with the proposition
that because of several developmental projects, there is a delay in depositing
the amounts as the petitioners herein are basically farmers and their
agricultural lands were the only source of livelihood for them. The amounts
allocated for disbursement to the petitioners cannot be used, by any means,
for other developmental projects. This Court also directed the State of
Maharashtra to send proposals and complete formalities within two weeks.
34. Learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the
order dated 29th November 2021 passed by this Court making various
observations about the conduct of the CIDCO and directed the CIDCO as
well as the State Government to file additional affidavit-in-reply in
response to various documents relied upon by the petitioners in the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
compilation of documents.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
additional affidavit filed on behalf of the CIDCO affirmed on 8 th October
2021 and in particular paragraphs 4 to 11. He submits that even according
to the CIDCO, in all 101 cases received by the CIDCO for
disbursement/deposit which includes the present 87 cases, in which the
CIDCO has already disbursed the decreetal amount in only 3 cases. He
submits that according to the CIDCO, since the year 2008 till September
2021, the CIDCO has disbursed an amount of Rs.2461 crores towards
2790 cases of Land reference. Even in the current year 2021, the CIDCO
has disbursed an amount of Rs.12,35,54,158/- towards 220 Lok Adalat
proceedings, 11 proceedings arising out of Section 28A proceedings, 11
cases arising out of execution proceedings and 6 cases arising out of
attachment proceedings.
36. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the stand of the
CIDCO in paragraph 11 of the additional affidavit that as a matter of policy,
the CIDCO is taking steps to deposit higher amounts to save on the interest
and that the CIDCO would be required to spend more interest on higher
amounts and therefore, the priority is given to disburse/deposit higher
amounts is totally absurd.
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
37. To controvert the statement made in the additional affidavit filed by
the CIDCO, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to
various charts already on record showing that the amount released by the
CIDCO under the guise of payment made for such higher amount is in many
of the cases of the petitioners are at par. The CIDCO however, has selected
only specific cases though some of the petitioners were similarly situated
but did not pay any amount of the petitioners. The criteria adopted by the
CIDCO is totally arbitrary and without any basis.
38. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhusawal Municipal Council
Vs. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak & Ors., (2015) 14 SCC 327 and in
particular paragraphs 5 to 11, 13 to 17, 20 and 21 and would submit that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of the fundamental right of
a farmer to cultivate his land as a part of his right to livelihood. He submits
that the Supreme Court has rejected the excuse of acquiring body having
paucity of funds as justification not to deposit the amount of compensation.
He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that if the land
is to be acquired, law requires prompt payment of compensation and if the
acquiring body is not in a position to make the payment of compensation,
the person-aggrieved becomes entitled to get the land restored.
39. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
Government has taken possession of plots of the petitioners long back and
has already handed over possession thereof to the CIDCO. The CIDCO
has been utilising these plots for various commercial activities at a much
higher rate than the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. He
submits that the rate of interest @ 15% awarded by the Reference Court
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would be paid by the
CIDCO not from its own pockets but would be paid out of tax payers
pockets.
40. Mr. A. M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the CIDCO on the other hand
submits that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the
petitioners have efficacious alternate remedy available for enforcement of
the order passed by the Reference Court, which remedy has been already
availed of by the petitioners by filing Execution Applications. CIDCO
being not a party to the said reference application or to the execution
application, no reliefs can be prayed against CIDCO in this petition. The
petitioners have no locus against the CIDCO.
41. Learned counsel for the CIDCO invited our attention to the order
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal filed
by CIDCO bearing No.184 of 2010 annexed at Exhibit 'Q' to the petition
and would submit that the CIDCO had applied for impleadment in the
reference application filed by one of the claimant being a necessary party.
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
The said application for impleadment was allowed by the Reference Court.
The learned Single Judge of this Court however was pleased to set aside the
said order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the Reference Court. He
submits that the said claimant had opposed even the Letters Patent Appeal
filed by the CIDCO on the ground that CIDCO was not a necessary party in
the reference application filed by the claimant.
42. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the lands of the petitioners
are acquired by the State Government and only thereafter the possession of
the same was handed over to the CIDCO for development of Navi Mumbai
Project. All the lands were subsequently transferred to the CIDCO by the
State Government to pay the compensation for acquisition of lands. It is
submitted that certain proposals received from the office of the Collector
regarding payment of deposit are pending with the office of CIDCO and are
not processed. The CIDCO has undertaken several development activities
including Metro, development of infrastructure, recurring expenses,
conferring of 12.5% benefits, Navi Mumbai International Airport Project
which require investment of huge money.
43. It is submitted that around 1200 cases are pending and as per the fund
availability and cash flow and looking at the other prime projects, the
payment are being released by CIDCO. Adequate funds are not available
with the office of the CIDCO for disbursement and available funds are
required for the purpose of developing the prime projects such as Navi
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
Mumbai International Airport Project and many other projects. It is
submitted that the decreetal orders of this Court and Lok Adalat cases are
given priority and as and when funds are available, payments are released in
these matters.
44. Learned counsel for the CIDCO submits that quantum of due and
payable amounts is too high as compared to the available funds. CIDCO is
making best possible efforts to disburse/deposit the amounts at the earliest.
As a matter of policy, the CIDCO is taking steps to deposit higher amounts
to save on the interest. Since, CIDCO would be required to spend more
interest on higher amounts, the priority is given by CIDCO to disburse/
deposit the higher amounts. CIDCO would be disbursing/depositing the
decretal amount as early as possible depending upon the availability of the
funds.
45. Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder
submits that the amount payable to these petitioners is more than 150 to 160
crores approximately. CIDCO has deposited the amounts ranging from
Rs.17,70,031/- to Rs.4,41,22,264/- and thus it would not lie in the mouth of
CIDCO that CIDCO has deposited the compensation amount only in cases
where higher amounts are involved. He compared the amount of
compensation claimed by most of the petitioners in this case and the amount
deposited by the CIDCO. He submits that the CIDCO has admittedly
deposited the sum of Rs.8,56,66,453/- even in the cases which are decided
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
after the date of decisions in the case of the petitioners and where appeals
are subsequently filed and are pending. The CIDCO has misled this Court
by contending that only in case of orders passed by the Executing Court or
where higher amount of compensation is involved, the CIDCO has
deposited/disbursed the amount only in those cases.
46. Insofar as the issue of alternate remedy raised by CIDCO is
concerned, it is submitted that the State Government has already clarified
that the proposal for payment to be made to the petitioners under various
land acquisition awards and the order of enhancement passed by the
Reference Court is already submitted from time to time to CIDCO for
compliance but the same is of no avail. He relied upon Section 113(3A) of
the MRTP Act and would submit that the CIDCO is an agent of the State
Government. The work of development is entrusted by the State
Government to CIDCO.
47. Though the State Government is acquiring body under Section 113
(A) in view of the Government Resolution dated 12 th February, 2008, it is
the liability of CIDCO to deposit the amount with the State Government.
The CIDCO is liable to pay the compensation on account of Government.
Since, the State Government has asked the CIDCO who is its agent to
deposit the amount, CIDCO cannot refuse to deposit the amount in view of
the said Government Resolution. It is lastly submitted that the CIDCO be
directed to deposit the amounts claimed by the petitioners which are in
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
conformity with various orders passed by the Reference Court where no
appeal has been filed by the State Government or where appeals were filed
by the State Government but where no stay is granted till date or where this
Court had granted stay on condition of deposit by the State Government
within the time prescribed and not deposited by the State Government.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION :-
48. It is not in dispute that various lands of the petitioners have been
acquired by the State Government from time to time for the purpose of
setting up the city of New Bombay. The State Government had commenced
the acquisition in mass scale in respect of large area for setting up New
Bombay. There were various awards made by the said Land Acquisition
Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, in the year 1989 and
thereafter. The petitioners not having been satisfied with the compensation
offered in those awards filed application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act for making reference before the Reference Court. In 30
cases, no appeal has been filed by the State Government. The execution
application filed by those 30 petitioners are pending since 2018-19. The
details of those matters are summarized by the petitioners in the chart
annexed at Exhibit 'A' to the petition.
49. The respondents have not disputed those details summarized in the
said chart. In case of 27 petitioners, State Government has filed those
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
appeals, in the year 2018, 2019 or 2020, which are pending for admission.
The State Government has not even pressed any application for stay of the
order passed by the Reference Court granting enhancement of claim in those
appeals. The State Government has neither deposited any amount
voluntarily nor offered any payment to the petitioners.
50. In 30 cases, filed by 30 claimants (petitioners to this petition), the
State Government has filed first appeals in the year 2017, 2018, 2019.
Though this Court while admitting the appeals had directed the State
Government to deposit the decretal amount before the Reference Court with
interest, till date no amount has been deposited by the State Government.
51. On a perusal of the affidavits filed by the State Government in this
petition, it is clear that the State Government has taken a stand that under
the Government Resolution dated 12th February, 2008, it was the
responsibility of CIDCO to deposit the amount with the State Government
for payment of compensation to the land owners or other beneficiaries who
were awarded compensation for acquisition of those lands acquired by the
State Government and handed over to the CIDCO. It is also a specific case
of the State Government with regard to the various proposals that are
already made by State Government to CIDCO quantifying the claims with
directions to deposit the amount of compensation with State Government,
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
however, has not been deposited insofar as these petitioners are concerned.
A perusal of the correspondence annexed by the State Government in
various affidavits filed before this Court and the chart produced along with
those affidavits would indicate that there is no dispute about the claims
made by the petitioners or the amount awarded by the Reference Court in
the cases where no appeals are filed till date.
52. The stand taken by the State Government is that since CIDCO has not
deposited the amount, the State Government is not able to deposit the
amount in Executing Court or before this Court in the pending proceedings
or to pay the amount directly to the petitioners. On the other hand, the stand
taken by the CIDCO is that CIDCO is an agent of the State Government and
there is no priority of contract between the petitioners and the CIDCO.
53. A perusal of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the
Letter Patent Appeal filed by CIDCO clearly indicates the stand taken by
CIDCO. It was the specific case of CIDCO that the CIDCO in their
application for impleadment had specifically contended that they are the
beneficiaries of the acquisition and on the basis of agreement made by them
with the Government of Maharashtra, compensation would be payable by
CIDCO. The CIDCO had pressed in service Section 50(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act in the said proceedings before this Court. This Court in the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
said judgment delivered in the said Letter Patent Appeal has held that the
CIDCO, New Town Development Authority is declared as an agent of the
State Government. It is held that under the said Government Resolution,
the payment has to be made by CIDCO as compensation/enhancement of
compensation on account of Government.
54. In our view, the stand now taken by CIDCO before this Court is
contrary to the stand taken by the CIDCO in the said Letter Patent Appeal
filed by it in this Court. The CIDCO has not challenged the said
Government Resolution dated 12th February, 2008 issued by the State
Government providing that the payment to be made by the CIDCO as
compensation/ enhancement of compensation on account of Government.
55. A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioners and also by
State Government and CIDCO on record of these proceedings would
indicate that the State Government had not disputed its liability to deposit
various amounts in the matters where no appeals are filed or though the
appeals are filed no stay has been obtained by the State Government. State
Government has also not disputed its liability where conditional orders are
passed by this Court in some of the appeals for grant of stay of the orders
passed by the Reference Court, but the State Government has not deposited
any amount contending that the CIDCO was liable to deposit the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
compensation/enhancement of compensation on account of Government.
56. As a matter of record, the State Government has also forwarded
various proposals quantifying the amount required to be deposited by the
State Government in various pending proceedings or to pay to the
petitioners where no appeals are preferred by the State Government for the
deposit to be made by the CIDCO. The CIDCO has not deposited any
amount in compliance with the said Government Resolution dated 12th
August, 2010, in so far these petitioners are concerned.
57. In our view, the CIDCO being a public undertaking and being an
implementing agency is bound to comply with its obligation under the
Government Resolution. The refusal to comply with its obligations
frustrates the crystallized claims of the petitioners for compensation whose
lands are acquired 25 years ago. There is thus no substance in the
submission made by the learned counsel for the CIDCO that this writ
petition praying for order and directions against the respondent nos. 3 to 7
including CIDCO would not be maintainable. By this petition, the
petitioners seek enforcement of obligation of the CIDCO to comply with
their obligation under the said Government Resolution dated 12 th August,
2010.
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
58. CIDCO cannot be allowed to refuse to comply with their part of
obligation under the said Government Resolution which would frustrate the
decrees already passed in favour of the petitioners-farmers. In the execution
proceedings, the Executing Court will not be empowered to pass any order
of deposit against CIDCO or to comply with its obligations under the said
Government Resolution dated 12th August, 2010. It is not the case of the
CIDCO that it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Even if an alternate
remedy exists, it would not be a bar for a Writ Court to exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if a Government undertaking
or the State Government refuses to comply with its part of duty or
obligation and commits a breach of Government Resolution and has acted
illegally.
59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhusawal Municipal
Council (Supra) has held that in case the person aggrieved is deprived of
the land without making the payment of compensation as determined by the
Collector/Court, it would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to
become vagabond or to indulge in anti-social activities as such sentiments
would be born in them on account of such ill-treatment. It is not
permissible for any State/authority to uproot a person and deprive him of his
human rights, without ensuring compliance with the statutory requirement
under the garb of development. A delayed payment may lose the charm and
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
utility of the compensation. Thus, the compensation must be determined
and paid without loss of time.
60. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the fundamental right of a
farmer to cultivate his land is a part of right to livelihood. Agricultural land
is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom from fear. It is held
that the excuse that the authority has paucity of funds cannot be accepted as
a justified cause to entertain the petition. If the land is to be acquired, law
requires prompt payment of compensation. In case the party by whom or
for whom the land is acquired is not in a position to make the payment of
compensation, the person aggrieved becomes entitled to get the land
restored. Payment of compensation as per award under Section 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act cannot be sufficient security to serve the interest of
the person interested pending adjudication of appeal against the award of
Reference Court.
61. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot sit limply and
allow the defaulter to go scot-free and force the person seeking protection to
lose hope. The Court cannot adopt an indifferent and passive attitude in
such circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed Bhusawal
Municipal Council to make the payment of the enhanced amount of
compensation within a period of ten weeks from the said order and made it
clear that in case of failure to pay the enhanced compensation, the Bhusawal
Municipal Council shall restore the possession of the suit land to the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
persons aggrieved who in turn would refund the entire amount received as
compensation.
62. In our view, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
would squarely apply to the facts of this case. The respondents having
acquired the lands of the petitioners long back are bent upon to delay the
payment of compensation on one or other flimsy grounds. CIDCO cannot
be allowed to raise a plea that it has no funds available for making deposit
with the SLAO after obtaining lands from SLAO long back and utilizing
those lands for various purposes.
63. A perusal of the record further indicates that the CIDCO has
deposited the compensation amount in selected matters, under the guise of
those matters having awarded compensation for higher amount. A perusal
of the chart produced for our perusal by the parties would indicate the
position otherwise. The CIDCO has not only deposited the amount in
respect of the some of the higher claims for compensation but also in
respect of smaller claims which situation is at par with the situation in
which the petitioners fall. This action on the part of the CIDCO is
discriminatory.
64. Learned counsel for the CIDCO could not dispute that the CIDCO
has been already utilizing those plots after possession thereof has been
handed over by the State Government to CIDCO for implementing the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
projects in Navi Mumbai.
65. Insofar as the submission of Mr. A. M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for
the CIDCO that since the claimants were awarded higher compensation,
they are required to be paid first in view of larger interest liability is
concerned, in our view, this stand taken by the CIDCO is totally absurd and
is required to be rejected at the threshold. The rate of interest payable under
the provisions of Land Acquisition Act is the same whether compensation is
a smaller amount or higher amount. Learned counsel for the CIDCO also
could not dispute that large number of commercial activities are also carried
out by CIDCO.
66. There is no substance in the submissions of CIDCO that there is a
shortage of funds or that the funds are required for several projects and on
that ground CIDCO is unable to deposit any amount insofar as these
petitioners are concerned. In our view, the CIDCO has selected certain
claimants and has deposited the compensation only in respect of those
selected cases and have ignored the claims of these poor farmers for the
reasons best known to CIDCO. All the claimants were awarded
compensation and have not been treated equally by CIDCO while
depositing the amount. The entire action on the part of CIDCO for not
depositing the amount is in gross violation of Article 14 and 300A of the
bdp
wp-2085.21.doc
Constitution of India.
67. We accordingly pass the following order :-
(a) Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to deposit the decreetal
amount with interest due and payable under the Land
Acquisition Act, with all consequential benefit with the
respondent nos. 5 to 7 within four weeks from today as
particularly prescribed in chart at Exhibits 'A', 'E' and 'I',
without fail. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to deposit such amount
with the Reference Court within two weeks thereafter with
intimation to the petitioners within one week from the date of
such deposit.
(b) The petitioners would be at liberty to apply for withdrawal of
the said amount before the Reference Court. If any such
application is made, the Reference Court to dispose of the said
application within four weeks from the date of the petitioners'
applying for withdrawal of the said amount.
(c) Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(d) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[S. M. MODAK, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
VASANT Digitally signed by VASANT
ANANDRAO IDHOL
ANANDRAO Date: 2022.03.25 16:08:00
IDHOL +0530
