Bombay High Court
The Executive Director Tapi Irrigation ... vs Suryakant Vasudev Pate And Others on 2 September, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:20356-DB
3ca8582-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
3 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8582 OF 2024
IN WP/9699/2023
SURYAKANT VASUDEO PATE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13882 OF 2023
IN WP/9699/2023
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TAPI IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION JALGAON AND ORS
VERSUS
SURYAKANT VASUDEV PATE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Rohit Patwardhan h/for Mr. D.R. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents State
Mr. A. D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6/Applicant in
CA/13882/23
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 2nd September, 2024
ORDER:
1. The Writ Petition has been disposed off by order dated
09.08.2023, directing Respondent No.6-Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division, Jalgaon to take a decision on the representation of
the Petitioners, within 60 days. The representation was for rental
compensation.
2. The Executive Director, Tapi Irrigation Development
Corporation had moved Civil Application No. 13882 of 2023, seeking
extension of time. The said Civil Application was filed on 27.10.2023.
3ca8582-24
Till today, despite passage of 10 months, the Executive Engineer has
done nothing in this matter. Hence, the Petitioners have filed this Civil
Application seeking directions.
3. In Bhagwat Nathu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & others,
2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 413, this Court ruled in the following terms as regards
rental compensation, below paragraph No.17:-
"17. Conclusions:
(1) Rental Compensation is payable on the awarded value
at the rate of 6 and 1/2% from 1.12.1972 and at the rate of
8% from 2.5.1979 till the full amount of final award is paid
to the landowner. Awarded value would include all
amounts determined under section 23, except section 23 (1-
A) and section 23(2).
(2) If in reference or in proceedings under section 28 (1-A)
or in appeal, the awarded amount is increased, the rental
compensation will have to be re-determined in terms of the
market value as re-determined.
(3) The interest payable on the rental compensation, not
paid, would be at the rate of 6% for the period in default.
This amount would be, however, payable only from 1-4-2000.
(4) Considering the observations in R.L. Jain (D), the rental
compensation will be decided by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. While deciding rental compensation, the
3ca8582-24
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Collector, would hear the
interested persons, i.e. landowners or other parties have
interest as also the acquiring body. While doing so, if the
date of taking possession of the land is not set out in the
award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the
same.
(5) The rental compensation along with interest would be
paid by the State or the acquiring body as the case may be,
within four months of the Special Land Acquisition Officer
determining the rental compensation and amount of
interest."
4. Most of the Petitioners are senior citizens and some of them
are 75+ in age. The impression that we gathered from the record is
that these Petitioners are made to run from pillar to post. They contend
that the possessions of the lands were taken in 1972. The Department
has concluded the cut off date, as 01.08.1984, for calculating the rental
compensation until 2018, when Section 11 notice under the 2013 Land
Acquisition Act was published. According to the Petitioners, the rental
compensation from 1972 would be Rs.01,42,01,007/-. If 1979 is the
year to be considered, the amount will be Rs.76,74,264/-. If the date as
accepted by the department is to be taken into account (01.08.1984),
the amount would be Rs.65,61,625/-.
5. The learned Advocate for the Department submits that the
matter be relegated to the District Collector for further consideration.
3ca8582-24
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are
tired of this litigation. It is 52 years, according to them, that the lands
have been acquired. The actual landlord is 75 years of age.
6. In view of the above, we direct the District Collector to release
the amount of Rs.65,61,625/-, which is an undisputed amount,
calculated by reckoning the date 1.8.1984, by quantifying the amount
payable to each of these Petitioners. This entire exercise shall be done
within 30 days from today, failing which, we will hold the District
Collector and the Executive Engineer Shri Santosh Ramchandra
Bhosale, as responsible for the disobedience of our order. If the Model
Code of Conduct is declared, that would not be an impediment or
ground to refrain from making such payment.
7. Insofar as the other disputed issues are concerned, they
cannot be looked into by this Court in it's Writ jurisdiction in the light
of City and Industrial Development Corporation Versus Dosu Aardeshir
Bhiwandiwala (2009) 1 SCC 168. We permit the Petitioners to approach
the Civil Court for direction/declaration etc. in the matter of proper
calculations to be made and for payment of the said amount.
8. With the above directions, this Civil Application as well as
Civil Application No. 13882 of 2023, stand disposed off.
3ca8582-24
9. The Collector shall take into account 6% interest on the
unpaid amount in the light of Clause 17(3) of the judgment delivered in
Bhagwat Nathu Patil (supra).
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
JPChavan
