Bombay High Court
Pandurang Janu Mhatre And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Dpet Of ... on 2 January, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S.Sonak
17-WP-12099-2024(F).docx
2025:BHC-AS:26-DB
Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12099 OF 2024
1. Pandurang Janu Mhatre ]
Age: 76 years, Occ: Agriculture ]
2. Dayanand Janu Mhatre ]
(Since Deceased) ]
A. Nitin Dayanand Mhatre ]
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture ]
B. Santosh Dayanand Mhatre ]
Age: 51 Years, Occ: Agriculture ]
C. Kishor Dayanand Mhatre ]
Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture ]
3. Sangita Ankush Bhoir ]
Age: 53 year, Occ: Housewife ]
4. Sunder Janu Mhatre ]
Age: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture ]
5. Parshuram Janu Mhatre ]
Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture ]
6. Ashok Janu Mhatre ]
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture ]
All R/o of Bamandongri, Post Vahal, ]
Tal. Panvel, District Raigad ] ...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra ]
Page 1 of 6
17-WP-12099-2024(F).docx
Through Department of ]
Revenue and Forest Department. ]
2. District Collector, Raigad ]
Through Deputy Collector ]
Metro Center No.1, Panvel ]
Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad ]
3. CIDCO ]
Through Administrative Director, ]
(Land Acquisition) 2nd Floor, ]
Cidco Bhavan, CBD Belapur, ]
Navi Mumbai. ] ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
A PPEARANCES -
Ms Smita Gaidhani, for the Petitioners.
Mr R. S. Pawar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S.Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 02 January 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. The Petitioners' properties were acquired under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 [ Old Act]. An
award was made on 7 July 2017 under Section 11 of the Old
Act.
17-WP-12099-2024(F).docx
4. The Petitioners objected to the above award, including,
inter alia, on the ground that the provisions of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "New Act")
ought to have been made applicable.
5. Considering the Petitioners' objections, a reference was
made under Section 18 of the Old Act to the District Court.
The Petitioners have pleaded that these references are still
pending before the District Court even though, according to
the Petitioners, the District Court is no longer the Competent
Court to decide any such references under the New Act.
6. Therefore, the Petitioners have instituted this Petition to
seek the transfer of these pending references to the
Competent Authority under Section 64 of the New Act.
7. Ms Smita Gaidhani, learned counsel for the Petitioners,
relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation vs. Rajeev L. Sangtani and others, Civil
Revision Application No.316 of 2016, decided on 7 August
2019, to submit that, under such circumstances, a reference
must be made to the authority constituted under Section 51 of
the New Act.
8. Mr R. S. Pawar, learned AGP, fairly accepts that the issue
raised in this Petition is covered by the decision of the Full
Bench referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioners.
9. The Full Bench of this Court was called upon to consider
the following issues transcribed in paragraph 2 of the
judgment and order dated 7 August 2019:-
17-WP-12099-2024(F).docx
"2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment
dated 19th October 2018, in the instant Civil Revision
Application, has made the following reference to the Larger
Bench for consideration :
(i) Whether under section 24(1)(b) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land owner
or any party seeking enhancement of claim of
compensation can invoke the provisions of section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for seeking enhancement of
claim of compensation even though the land acquisition
award had been rendered under section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 after 1st January, 2014 ?
OR
(ii) Whether any such person interested who has not
accepted the award rendered after 1st January, 2014
declaring compensation under section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 can seek reference by applying only
to refer such claim to the Authority i.e. the "Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority"
established under section 51 of the Act of 2013 ?"
10. The Full Bench recorded its conclusions in paragraphs
112, 113 and 114, which read as follows:-
"112. The upshot of aforesaid consideration and reasons,
which we have indicated above, is that, in a case of land
acquisition initiated under the provisions of the Old Act, where
an award is to be made, after the enforcement of the Act, 2013,
such an award shall be made under the provisions of the Act,
2013, and any claim, objecting to the award, shall be referred
for determination to the Authority constituted under the Act,
2013, and not to the Court under the Old Act. We, therefore,
affirm the correctness of the view recorded in the case of Jairam
Gangaram Burke (Supra).
113. We, thus, record our conclusions as under :
114. (I) In a case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, where an award has been rendered under
section 11 of the said Act, after the enforcement of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
17-WP-12099-2024(F).docx
i.e., 1st January 2014, any claim/application, objecting
to the award shall be referred for determination to the
Authority constituted under section 51 of the Act, 2013,
in accordance with the provisions contained in section
64 of the Act, 2013, and not to the Court under the
provisions of section 18 of the Act, 1894.
(II) In a case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no
award has been made before the enforcement of the Act, 2013,
the award shall be made under the provisions of the Act, 2013."
11. By following the Full Bench, we now direct the learned
Reference Court to transfer the pending references, i.e. LAR
No.144 of 2017 and LAR No.386 of 2019, to the Competent
Authority constituted under Section 51 of the New Act. Such
transfer should be made within four weeks of an
authenticated copy of this order being produced by the
Petitioners or the Respondents before the learned Reference
Court, i.e. the District Judge at Panvel. The Competent
Authority must then dispose of these references following the
law and on their own merits.
12. The Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (b) of this Petition, which reads as follows:-
"(b) This Hon'ble Court, after perusal of the said records, be
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Writ
thereby directing the Learned District Judge Panvel to refer
the applications filed by the Petitioners under section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act which are pending before the said
Court as LAR No. 144 of 2017 and LAR No. 386 of 2019, to
the Competent Authority in accordance with section 64 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013."
13. There shall be no order for costs.
17-WP-12099-2024(F).docx
14. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Date: 02/01/2025 18:09:00
