Bombay High Court
Ramesh Dagdu Chavan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:8657-DB
-1-
wp3016.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3016 OF 2020
1. Ramesh s/o Dagdu Chavan
age 41 years, occ. Agri
r/o Kawda, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani
2. Vijay s/o Dagdu Chavan
age 45 years, occ. Agri
r/o Kawda, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani .. Petitioners
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
(Employment Guarantee Scheme)
Planning Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Collector, Parbhani
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani
4. The Deputy Collector (Employment Gurantee
Scheme) Parbhani
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
5. The Deputy Collector, (General Administration
Department), Parbhani
Tq.& Dist. Parbhani
6. The Deputy Collector & The Land Acquisition
Officer, Sailu, Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani
7. Sub-Divisional Officer & The Land Acquisition
officer, Sub-Division Office, Sailu
Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani
-2-
wp3016.20.odt
8. Executive Engineer
Small Scale Irrigation (Water Conservation) Divisional
Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
9. The District Water Conservation Officer
Soil and Water Conservation Division, Jalna
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
10. Deputy Divisional Officer
Soil & Water Conservation Department
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani
10-A The Superintendent,
Land Records Office, Sailu & Parbhani
Dist. Parbhani .. Respondents
Mr. Y. R. Barhate, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. B. Girase, GP for the State.
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE : 20th MARCH, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER : CHIEF JUSTICE )
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is heard finally.
2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have assailed the
order dated 02.11.2019 issued by the Collector by which, the
Petitioners have been informed that the proceeding under The Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
wp3016.20.odt
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'The Act of
2013') has been dropped.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this Petition in nutshell
can be stated that the Petitioners are the agriculturists and are the
owners of land Gat No. 79, admeasuring 01.66 R, situated at village
Kavi, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. A proceeding for acquisition of the
aforesaid land for construction of percolation tank was initiated
under the Act of 2013. Panchanama is prepared on 30.07.2019
stating that the possession of the land has been taken over from the
Petitioners. However, thereafter by a communication dated
02.11.2019, the Petitioners were apprised that the State Government
does not intend to proceed further with the acquisition proceeding
under the Act of 2013 and the same is dropped. Hence, this Petition.
4. Learned counsel for Petitioners has invited attention of
this Court to Section 93(2) of the Act of 2013 and has submitted that
whenever the Collector decides to withdraw from the acquisition of
the land, he shall determine the amount of compensation due for the
damages suffered by the owners in consequence of the notice of any
proceeding and shall pay such amount to the person interested
wp3016.20.odt
together with costs. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition be
disposed off with a direction to the Collector to take action in terms
of Section 93(2) of the Act of 2013.
5. The aforesaid submission has not been opposed by
learned GP.
6. We have considered rival submissions made on behalf of
both the sides and have gone through the provisions of Section 93(2)
of the Act of 2013 which read thus :-
93. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed.
(2) Whenever the appropriate Government withdraws
from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine
the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered
by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any
proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to
the person interested, together with all costs reasonably
incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings
under this Act relating to the said land.
7. Thus, in the instant case, proceeding under the Act of
2013 was initiated however, the State Government has subsequently
withdrawn the proceeding and therefore, the Collector is under
wp3016.20.odt
statutory obligation to determine the question of damages suffered by
the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceeding under
the Act of 2013 and to pay the same.
8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off with
a direction to take requisite action as mandated under Section 93(2)
of the Act of 2013 within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE )
dyb
