[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition ... vs M/S Vasinaka Sahakari Mandal Mumbai ... on 11 December, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.2 OF 2013
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition No.2)
Mumbai Suburban District .... Acquisition Officer
AND
M/s. Vasinaka Sahakari Mandal .... Claimant
AND
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority (MMRDA) .... Acquiring body
.......
Mr. C. G. Gavnekar i/b. Mr. Abhishek Matkar a/w Mr. S.P.
Kanuga, Advocate for Claimant.
Mr. Saket Mone a/w Mr. Shrey Shah a/w Ms. Mitali Dhoble i/b.
Vidhii Partners, for Acquiring Body, MMRDA.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2025
ORDER :
1. On 09/10/2025, this Court passed the following
order :
". Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the
preliminary issue with regard to the question, as
MANUSHREE
NESARIKAR
to whether this Court, as the Reference Court,
can go into the question of the relevant date of
17:21:49 +0530 notification, which would be the basis for
Nesarikar
2/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
determination of compensation, needs to be
considered at the outset.
2. The learned counsel for the parties are
ready with their submissions and judgments,
upon which they wish to rely.
3. Hence, list this reference proceeding for
hearing on the said preliminary issue, on 12 th
November 2025 at 03.00 p.m."
2. On 12/11/2025, this reference could not be taken for
consideration and hence it was adjourned to be eventually heard
today on the aforesaid preliminary issue raised on behalf of the
beneficiary of the acquisition i.e. Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority (MMRDA).
3. Mr. Gavnekar, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant submitted that the preliminary issue sought to be
raised with regard to jurisdiction of this Court for determining
the question regarding relevant date of notification has to be
answered in favour of the claimant. It is submitted that this
Court while exercising jurisdiction of the Reference Court u/s 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), is to determine
amongst other things, the amount of compensation payable to
the claimant, keeping in mind the matters to be considered for
determining compensation u/s 23 of the LA Act. It was
submitted that when the whole purpose of the reference
proceeding, which is an original proceeding, is to determine the
3/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
market value of the land and consequently the amount of
compensation to be paid to the claimant, the date with reference
to which the market value is to be determined is clearly covered
u/s 18 of the LA Act as well as within the jurisdiction of this
Court. The learned counsel for the claimant referred to
provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966
and the aforesaid provisions of LA Act and invited attention of
this Court to the two notifications that are subject matter of the
debate in this case dated 03/04/1998 and 21/09/2011. It was
submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Akkalkot Municipal Council Vs. Vasantrao Tulsiram Kharade &
Ors., as reported in 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 311, while considering a
substantive Appeal under the LA Act, entered into the question
as to which was the relevant date for fixing market value of the
acquired property in the context of the two notifications that
were placed on record. It was submitted that in the facts of the
said case, the Division Bench of this Court held that the
subsequent notification was relevant.
4. On this basis it was submitted that this Court can
certainly exercise jurisdiction to resolve the controversy
regarding which of the notifications would be the relevant
notification in the present case for determination of the market
value of the acquired land.
5. In support of the contention that specific factors need
to be taken into consideration while determining the market
value by Reference Court u/s 18 of the LA Act, reliance was
4/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil, as
reported in 2010 (2), Mh.L.J. 387.
Reliance was also placed on Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd
and Another Vs. Special Duty Collector (Land Acquisition), as
reported in (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 59.
6. Apart from this, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that the claimant had filed a Writ Petition before this
Court bearing Writ Petition No.1010 of 2010. By an amendment
the claimant had incorporated prayers in the said Writ Petition
raising this very issue with regard to the applicability of the
notification of the year 2011 for determining the market value
of the acquired land.
7. By an order dated 13/12/2023, the Division Bench of
this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing that the
aforesaid issue shall be decided by the Reference Court while
deciding all other issues raised in the Reference proceedings. On
a Special Leave Petition being filed against the said order of the
Division Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29/07/2024, in
its order passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No(s).29820/2024, upheld the order of the Division Bench by
dismissing the SLP and further left it open for the Reference
Court to decide all issues including the aforesaid issue,
pertaining to the application of the relevant notification, for the
purpose of determining the compensation. It was submitted that
5/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
the MMRDA was party in all these proceedings and it cannot be
permitted to turn around and challenge the very jurisdiction of
the Court to consider the said issue. On this basis, it was
submitted that the preliminary issue/objection raised on behalf
of the MMRDA needs to be accordingly decided.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Mone
appearing for the MMRDA submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a recent judgment in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph
Vaz and others, Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others, as
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 20 , reiterated the settled
position of law that only the High Court exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court exercising under Article 32/142 thereof has the
power and jurisdiction to shift or postpone the date of
preliminary notification. It was submitted that if this Court
enters into the said question, it would amount to acting in
conflict with the said position of law. It was submitted that the
Supreme Court clearly laid down that shifting or postponing of
the date of preliminary notification can be only be done in
exceptional circumstances and certainly it cannot be undertaken
by this Court in the present Reference proceedings. Learned
counsel Mr. Mone also sought to rely upon numerous
judgments to claim that only the first such notification could
be a reference point for determining the market value and
therefore, this Court cannot enter into the controversy,
notwithstanding the aforesaid order passed by the Division
6/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1010 of 2010 and the
Special Leave Petition being dismissed against the order.
9. This Court has heard the rival submissions. A very
narrow question arises for consideration and the same can be
answered on first principles. At the outset, this Court is in
agreement with the contention raised on behalf of the MMRDA
that if this Court as a Reference Court does not have jurisdiction
in law, to enter into such a question of examining as to which of
the notifications would be the relevant notification, no order of
any Court including the Supreme Court can foist jurisdiction in
such a matter.
10. Therefore, it needs to be examined as to whether the
MMRDA is justified in claiming that this Court in the Reference
proceedings cannot even consider the question regarding
relevancy of notification being raised on behalf of the claimant.
11. A perusal of section 18 of the LA Act shows that the
Reference Court is required to determine, amongst other things,
the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. Section 23
of the LA Act pertains to matters to be considered while
determining compensation and the first clause therein requires
that market value of the land has to be determined as on the
date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the LA Act. Thus,
the whole purpose of the proceeding before the Reference Court
is to determine the amount of compensation payable to the
claimant and to determine the market value of the acquired land
7/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
on the date of the notification. Thus, determining the question
as to the date of the notification is clearly a part of exercise to be
carried out by the Reference Court, when determining market
value of the acquired land and consequently the amount of
compensation payable to the claimant. Such a compensation
indeed has to be just and fair compensation.
12. There can be no dispute about the fact that reference
proceedings before this court are original proceedings and this
has been reiterated in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil
(supra). Thus, the claimant as well as the acquiring body and
the beneficiary of the acquisition are entitled to lead evidence on
each and every aspect of the matter concerning determination of
the market value of land and consequential amount of
compensation payable to the claimant.
13. In such a situation, it cannot lie in the mouth of the
beneficiary of the acquisition, in this case the MMRDA, that the
Reference Court cannot even consider the aforesaid question
due to lack of jurisdiction. As to whether the claimant will able
to make out his case that the subsequent notification dated
21/09/2011 is the only relevant notification, is a matter to be
determined on merits. But, it cannot be said that at the
threshold this Court would be prevented from even entering into
such arena for deciding the question.
14. In the case of Akkalkot Municipal Council Vs. Vasantrao
8/8 01-LAR-2-13.odt
Tulsiram Kharade & Ors. (supra), in a substantive Appeal arising
out of proceedings under the LA Act, one of the issues
determined by the Division Bench of this Court was, as to which
was the material date for fixing market value of the acquired
property in the context of two notifications, one relied upon by
the claimant and the other relied upon by the acquiring body.
The Division Bench of this Court, disagreed with the view taken
by the Reference Court and held that the subsequent notification
was the relevant notification. It is a different matter that
MMRDA in the present case may argue on facts that the
subsequent notification is not relevant, but it is not entitled to
claim that this Court is prevented at the threshold from
determining such a question.
15. This Court is of the opinion that determining such a
question is well within the jurisdiction of this Court while
considering the Reference proceeding u/s 18 of the LA Act.
16. In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised
by MMRDA is rejected. All questions are kept open.
17. The MMRDA is at liberty to file its Written Submissions
within four weeks from today.
18. Reference proceedings shall now be taken up for
further consideration on 02/02/2026.
(MANISH PITALE, J.)
