Bombay High Court
Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 January, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S.Sonak
25-WP-1405-2008(F).docx
2025:BHC-AS:83-DB
Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1405 OF 2008
Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Sanstha ]
Karvenagar, Pune-411052 ]
(Through its Secretary) ] ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Revenue Department ]
2. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer ]
No.15, ]
Municipal Corporation regional ]
Office Building, 3rd floor, ]
Above State Bank of India, ]
Tilak Road, Pune. 411002 ]
3. Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Pune. ]
Through Commissioner, ] ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
A PPEARANCES -
Adv Sandeep R Waghmare, for the Petitioner.
Mr R S Pawar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr A P Kulkarni, a/w Mr Abhishek Roy, Mr Krushna Jaybhay,
for Respondent No.3 (PMC).
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S.Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 02 January 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):-
25-WP-1405-2008(F).docx
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 Petitioner challenges the award made by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer No.15 (Collector) dated 31 January
2008 on the ground that the acquisition proceedings had
lapsed given the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("said Act").
4. The petition reveals that the challenge was based on the
Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
and others1.
5. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and
others2 has specifically overruled the decision in Pune
Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and others (supra). Therefore, based upon the
decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others (supra) the
impugned award cannot be quashed, or the impugned
acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be lapsed.
6. The conclusion in the above regard is set out in
paragraph 365 of Indore Development Authority vs.
(2014) 4 Mah.L.J. (SC) 566
(2020) 8 SCC 129
25-WP-1405-2008(F).docx
Manoharlal and others (supra), and the same reads as
follows: -
"Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn.
is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune
Municipal Corpn. has been followed, are also overruled. The
decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. cannot be
said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other
decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra, the aspect with
respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether "or" has
to be read as "nor" or as "and" was not placed for
consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in
the light of the discussion in the present judgment."
7. Mr Waghmare, while not disputing the above position,
now submits that the Petitioner should be awarded TDR in
lieu of monetary compensation. Mr Kulkarni, learned counsel
for the Pune Municipal Corporation ("PMC") points out that
the PMC had rejected such a proposal, and such rejection was
agreed to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO").
8. Though the proposal for allotment of TDR may have
been rejected earlier, considering that the Petitioner-Sanstha
was established in 1896 by the Late Bharat Ratna Maharshi
Dhondo Keshav Karve and has discharged yeoman service in
the field of education for women, we grant the Petitioner
liberty to represent to the Respondents for considering their
request for award of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation
for the acquired lands.
9. Mr Waghmare states that such representation would be
made within four weeks from today. Suppose such
representation by giving full justification is made within four
weeks from today, in that case, the PMC and the SLAO must
dispose of such representation in accordance with law and on
25-WP-1405-2008(F).docx
its own merits. The PMC and the SLAO must consider the
Petitioner institution's genesis and its need for additional
space in the context of several education institutions that the
Petitioner- Sanstha has established and continues to manage
and operate. Such representation must be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within eight weeks
of its receipt.
10. Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned award for
the acquisition is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the
Petitioner to represent regarding the award of TDR in lieu of
monetary compensation for the acquired lands.
11. The Rule is disposed of in the above terms without any
cost order.
12. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Date: 03/01/2025 14:27:49
