Bombay High Court
Ratnamala Hiralal Bhandari vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:30345-DB
1 WP-4778-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4778 OF 2022
Jitendra s/o. Shantilal Petty,
Age: 48 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,
R/o.: Near Shani Mandir, Juna Jalna,
District Jalna. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
2 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4772 OF 2022
Mrs. Rachna w/o. Jitendra Petty,
Age: 48 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,
R/o.: Near Shani Mandir, Juna Jalna,
District Jalna. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
3 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4775 OF 2022
Mrs. Varsha Surendra Petty,
Age: 53 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,
R/o.: Near Shani Mandir, Juna Jalna,
District Jalna .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
4 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4776 OF 2022
Ravindra s/o. Shantilal Petty,
Age: 51 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,
R/o.: Near Shani Mandir, Juna Jalna,
District Jalna .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
5 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4777 OF 2022
Surendra s/o. Shantilal Petty,
Age: 54 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,
R/o.: Near Shani Mandir, Juna Jalna,
District Jalna. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
6 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4786 OF 2022
Pankaj s/o. Ratilal Mugadiya,
Age: 44 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: N-3, CIDCO, District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
7 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4840 OF 2022
Mrs. Namrata w/o. Ravindra Petty,
Age: 47 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,
R/o.: Near Shani Mandir, Juna Jalna,
District Jalna. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
8 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7441 OF 2022
Mrs. Ashoo w/o. Rajendra Darda,
Age: 62 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: Lokmat Bhavan, Jalna Road,
District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit),
Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
9 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7442 OF 2022
Rishi s/o. Rajendra Darda,
Age: 44 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: Lokmat Bhavan, Jalna Road,
District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
10 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7443 OF 2022
Karan s/o. Rajendra Darda,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: Lokmat Bhavan, Jalna Road,
District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
11 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7440 OF 2022
Mrs. Ruchira s/o. Karan Darna,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: Lokmat Bhavan, Jalna Road,
District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
12 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7439 OF 2022
Mrs. Sheetal w/o. Rishi Darda,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: Lokmat Bhavan, Jalna Road,
District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
13 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4769 OF 2022
Ravindra s/o. Ramanlal Mugadiya,
Age: 54 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: N - 3, CIDCO,
District Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
14 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3858 OF 2023
Sangita S/o. Manoj Bhandari,
Age: 53 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: House No.63 'Ratnahira',
Bansilal Nagar, Station Road,
Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), AMC Building - 3, AMC,
Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
15 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3856 OF 2023
Poonam W/o. Anil Bhandari,
Age: 50 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: House No.63 'Ratnahira',
Bansilal Nagar, Station Road,
Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
16 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3854 OF 2023
Hiralal S/o. Chandmalji Bhandari,
Age: 76 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: House No.63 'Ratnahira',
Bansilal Nagar, Station Road,
Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
17 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3855 OF 2023
Manoj S/o. Hiralal Bhandari,
Age: 56 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: House No.63 'Ratnahira',
Bansilal Nagar, Station Road,
Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
18 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 2023
Ratnamala W/o. Hiralal Bhandari,
Age: 74 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: House No.63 'Ratnahira',
Bansilal Nagar, Station Road,
Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), AMC Building No.3, AMC,
Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
19 WP-4778-2022.odt
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3853 OF 2023
Anil S/o. Hiralal Bhandari,
Age: 54 years, Occu: Business,
R/o.: House No.63 'Ratnahira',
Bansilal Nagar, Station Road,
Aurangabad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Collector, Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Special Unit), AMC Building No.3, AMC,
Aurangabad.
5. City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Nirmal Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 21.
6. Chief Administrator,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Udyog Bhavan, Town Centre,
New Aurangabad - 431 003.
7. Administrator, Waluj Project,
City Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd.,
Waluj Mahanagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
20 WP-4778-2022.odt
_____________________________________________________
Appearance :
Mr. Palodkar Devdatt. P., Advocate for the Petitioner/s.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 - State.
Mr. Chetan Kapadia [Senior Advocate] a/w Mr. Yuvraj Singh,
Mr. Rahul Sinha, Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar and Mr. Akshay Kulkarni,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 7.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Reserved on : 7th August, 2025
Pronounced on : 6th November, 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT : [PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
1. As the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is
identical and common submissions are made by both the sides,
these Petitions are decided by this Common Judgment.
2. By these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for Writ of
Mandamus to the Respondents to pay the amount of
compensation along with all the statutory benefits and interest
towards acquisition of their lands situated at Village Golwadi,
Taluka and District Aurangabad, as agreed vide their respective
Agreements.
21 WP-4778-2022.odt
3. Necessary facts giving rise to the present Writ
Petitions are as under :
[I] The Petitioners are the owners of the lands, the details
of which, are referred below :-
Sr. Writ Name of Petitioners Land Gut Area under
Nos. Petition Nos./Village acquisition
Nos. in Ha.
1 2 3 4 5
1 4769/2022 Ravindra S/o Ramanlal Mugadiya 28 Golwadi 0.44
2 4772/2022 Mrs. Rachna W/o Jitendra Petty 24 Golwadi 0.36
29 Golwadi 0.46
3 4775/2022 Varsha Surendra Petty 26 Golwadi 0.47
4 4776/2022 Ravindra S/o Shantilal Petty 25 Golwadi 0.28
26 Golwadi 0.49
29 Golwadi 0.46
5 4777/2022 Surendra S/o Shantilal Petty 24 Golwadi 0.36
26 Golwadi 0.49
29 Golwadi 0.46
6 4778/2022 Jitendra S/o Shantilal Petty 19 Golwadi 0.08
20 Golwadi 0.29
26 Golwadi 0.49
29 Golwadi 0.46
7 4786/2022 Pankaj S/o Ratilal Mugadiya 28 Golwadi 0.44
8 4840/2022 Namrata W/o Ravindra Petty 24 Golwadi 0.32
29 Golwadi 0.46
9 7439/2022 Sheetal W/o Rishi Darda 28 Golwadi 0.528
10 7440/2022 Ruchira Karan Darda 28 Golwadi 0.528
11 7441/2022 Ashoo W/o Rajendra Darda 28 Golwadi 0.543
12 7442/2022 Rishi S/o Rajendra Darda 28 Golwadi 0.528
22 WP-4778-2022.odt
13 7443/2022 Karan S/o Rajendra Darda 28 Golwadi 0.528
14 3853/2023 Anil Hiralal Bhandari 21 Golwadi 0.46
15 3854/2023 Hiralal S/o Chandmalji Bhandari 28 Golwadi 0.44
16 3855/2023 Manoj S/o Hiralal Bhandari 21 Golwadi 0.46
17 3856/2023 Poonam W/o Anil Bhandari 21 Golwadi 0.12
24 Golwadi 0.33
18 3857/2023 Ratnamala W/o Hiralal Bhandari 28 Golwadi 0.44
19 3858/2023 Sangita Manoj Bhandari 24 Golwadi 0.28
25 Golwadi 0.17
[II] The above-referred lands were purchased by the
Petitioners after getting due permission from the Respondent No.7
- Administrator (For short 'the Administrator'). The above-referred
lands of the Petitioners were reserved in the Development Plan of
Waluj Notified Area (For short 'WNA') for various public purposes.
The Respondent No.5 - CIDCO (For short 'the CIDCO') came to
be appointed as a Special Planning Authority of WNA by
Respondent No.1 - State Government (For short 'the State
Government') in the year 1992. The State Government accorded
sanction to the Development Plan of WNA as per Section 31 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the MRTP Act') vide Notification published in the
Official Gazette on 14/08/2001.
23 WP-4778-2022.odt
[III] The State Government introduced the policy of
acquisition by consent i.e. direct purchase by way of Government
Resolution dated 12/05/2015, wherein some incentives are offered
to the land owners, but their right to file reference for enhancement
of compensation is taken away. Pursuant to the said Government
Resolution, the CIDCO adopted the policy of acquisition through
negotiation. The CIDCO constituted a Committee of nine (09)
Members under the Chairmanship of Chief Administrator, New
Towns, Aurangabad [CA (NT)]. The Committee was empowered
to negotiate with the land owners and fix the rate of compensation,
and thereafter, the Administrator was required to execute the
Agreements with the land owners on the rates decided by the
Committee. The said decision was taken by the Board Resolution
dated 15/03/2016.
[IV] The declarations under Section 126(4) of the MRTP
Act read with Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFCTLARR Act') were
published in respect of the lands of the Petitioners bearing Gat
24 WP-4778-2022.odt
Nos.19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 29, on 29/12/2016, 04/05/2017
and 13/07/2017, respectively. The Notification for Gat Nos.16, 31,
32, 34, 44, 48 and 49 of Golwadi, admeasuring 1 Hectare 49 R, is
not issued.
[V] The CIDCO, vide Board Resolution dated 03/11/2017,
amended the earlier Board Resolution and provided for giving 25%
additional amount on the compensation determined under the
RFCTLARR Act. On 30/01/2018, paper proclamation was issued
by the CIDCO calling the land owners, whose lands were under
acquisition for WNA, for negotiations. Accordingly, the Petitioners
submitted the proposals for acquisition by consent as per the
format provided by the CIDCO. The negotiations were held
between the Petitioners and Respondent No.6 - Chief
Administrator (For short 'the Chief Administrator'). The Petitioners
were ready to accept the market value as on the date of the
Notification, on the condition, not to apply slabs of ready reckoner
guidelines while computing the compensation. The Petitioners
were informed that, their demand would be submitted to the
Higher Authorities. On 18/04/2018, the CIDCO directed the
25 WP-4778-2022.odt
Committee headed by the Chief Administrator to proceed with the
Consent Agreement only in respect of the land owners, who were
ready to accept the market value of land prevailing on the date of
Notification under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. However, the
CIDCO approved the demand of calculation of compensation
amount without applying slabs of ready reckoner guidelines. The
Committee prepared revised calculation sheet up to 30/04/2018
and worked out the total amount of compensation at Rs.372.59
Crores on the basis of ready reckoner rates prevailing on the date
of publication of notification. In the calculation sheet, the market
values of the Petitioners' lands were shown as under :
"[a] For Gat No.26 @ Rs.4400/- per sqr. mtrs.
[b] For Gat Nos. 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 29 @
Rs.5600/- per sqr. mtrs."
[VI] The Chief Administrator received approval of the
CIDCO to the proposal. In view of the change of Managing
Director of the CIDCO, the Chief Administrator re-submitted the
proposal for consent acquisition for Rs.372.59 Crores. On
01/06/2018, the CIDCO accorded sanction for consent acquisition
26 WP-4778-2022.odt
for Rs.372.59 Crores. On 13/08/2018, the Government issued
Circular that, while determining the compensation of land
acquisition, the ready reckoner guidelines (slabs) shall not be
made applicable. On 02/11/2018, the CIDCO decided to seek
approval of the Board of Directors to amend the earlier Board
Resolution, which provided for removal of slabs of ready reckoner
guidelines while calculating the compensation amount. On
13/12/2018, the Board of Directors passed Board Resolution and
gave approval to amend the earlier Board Resolution for
calculation of the amount of compensation without applying slabs
of ready reckoner guidelines.
[VII] The Petitioners were called for negotiations and they
submitted their demand for consent acquisition. Several land
owners showed their willingness to accept the rate of market value
on the date of Notification as directed by the Board. The offers of
the Committee were accepted by the Petitioners on the condition
that, the payment of compensation would be made within a period
of forty five (45) days from the date of Agreements. On that
condition, the component of 12% interest per annum prescribed by
27 WP-4778-2022.odt
Section 30(3) of the RFCTLARR Act was agreed to be accepted
till 28/05/2019. On 04/06/2019, the Agreements were entered into
between the CIDCO and the Petitioners, setting out the consent
terms for declaration of Consent Award. On the basis of
Agreements, the CIDCO took the possession of entire acquired
lands from the Petitioners. The CIDCO took the possession of the
above-referred Petitioners' lands. The Petitioners and the CIDCO
entered into an Agreement for declaration of Consent Award on
04/06/2019 in terms of its policy. The compensation was to be
paid within a period of forty five (45) days. The Consent
Agreements were placed before the Respondent No.3 - Collector
(For short 'the Collector') and Respondent No.4 - Special Land
Acquisition Officer (Special Unit) (For short 'the SLAO'). The
Petitioners submitted their representations to the Respondents for
declaring the Consent Award and disbursement of compensation,
however in vain. One of the property holders, similarly placed like
the Petitioners, had filed Writ Petition No.10085/2019 before this
Court, which came to be disposed off by order dated 13/08/2019.
28 WP-4778-2022.odt
[VIII] The CIDCO received one letter from the Collector
raising certain queries on the methodology to be adopted in
passing the Consent Award. The Office of CIDCO at Aurangabad
submitted acquisition proceedings of WNA to the Respondent
No.5 after raising procedural queries. On 16/09/2019, the State
Government directed the Collector to pass the Consent Award in
respect of WNA. The said directions of the State Government
were forwarded by the CIDCO to the Chief Administrator. The
Collector communicated his queries to the State Government and
sought guidance on 03/10/2019. The State Government
responded to the said queries on 14/10/2019 with directions to
pass the Consent Award. The Collector and the SLAO filed Civil
Application seeking extension of time to declare the Award in the
said disposed off Writ Petition and this Court on 18/10/2019
granted extension of fifteen [15] days for passing the Consent
Award.
[IX] On 19/10/2019, the Collector and the SLAO approved
the Consent Award of the Petitioners and raised demand of
compensation amount to the CIDCO. On 13/11/2019, the
29 WP-4778-2022.odt
Aurangabad Office of CIDCO submitted the demand to the
Respondent No.5 for depositing the amount with the Collector and
the SLAO for declaration of Award. On 14/11/2019, Contempt
Petition No.807/2019 was filed by the Petitioners in the above said
Writ Petition. On 02/12/2019, a letter was issued by the CIDCO
to the State Government as well as Inspector General of
Registration (For short 'IGR') for verification of ready reckoner
rates of the years 2015 to 2017 in respect of village Golwadi. The
IGR, Pune responded to the communication and stated that, the
contention of the CIDCO in respect of sudden hike in the ready
reckoner rates in the year 2016 was incorrect.
[X] In the meeting dated 20/01/2020 of the Committee at
Aurangabad, held under the Chairmanship of the Chief
Administrator, several queries were raised by the then Managing
Director. On 06/02/2020, the State Government communicated
the CIDCO that, the report of IGR was realistic. On 03/03/2020,
the CIDCO passed Board Resolution No.12310 and decided to
withdraw from acquisition in respect of the entire WNA, however,
further decided to continue with the land acquisition proceedings in
30 WP-4778-2022.odt
respect of the lands of which the possession was already taken.
The Chief Administrator issued notices to the land owners, whose
lands were taken in possession, to attend a meeting on
23/09/2021, in which, the land owners requested to disburse the
amount of compensation. As the compensation was not paid, the
Petitioners submitted detailed representations in that regard. The
same are not yet decided, and therefore, these Petitions.
4. The Petitions are resisted by Respondent Nos.5 to 7
by filing Affidavit-in-Reply dated 25/07/2022 and Additional
Affidavit-in-Reply dated 03/10/2023. It is contended that, the
Petitioners are not the original owners of the lands in question
and they have purchased the lands after publication of the
Development Plan, and therefore, they are not the bonafide
purchasers. The Petitioners purchased only the piece of land
demarcated in the Development Plan for proposed WNA. The
State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 40(1B)
of the MRTP Act, appointed the CIDCO i.e. Respondent No.5 as a
Special Planning Authority to undertake planned and orderly
development of WNA. The CIDCO in exercise of the powers under
31 WP-4778-2022.odt
Section 113 of the MRTP Act, prepared a Draft Development Plan
in respect of the said project and published the same on
16/01/1992 and the State Government sanctioned a part of the
Draft Development Plan on 14/08/2001. In order to acquire the
lands for implementation of WNA, the declarations were issued
under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the L. A.
Act'), or Section 19 of the RFCTLARR Act on (a) 17/12/1998, (b)
24/12/1998, (c) 8 declarations dated 21/09/2000, and (d)
02/08/2012. After the said declarations, no proceedings under
the L. A. Act took place, except Award No.03/1996. The Board of
Directors in its meeting held on 28/08/2013 formulated the policy
for acquisition of the land for WNA. The State Government issued
a Government Resolution dated 12/05/2015 containing guidelines
for acquisition of the lands for any public project by direct
purchase from the land owners by paying the compensation,
which should be computed as per the provisions of the
RFCTLARR Act and in addition to the amount, the land owners be
paid a further sum equivalent to 25% of the amount of
32 WP-4778-2022.odt
compensation worked out under the RFCTLARR Act.
4-(a). The CIDCO, vide communications dated 30/09/2010,
22/02/2017 and 01/06/2017, requested the Collector to take steps
for making declarations under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act
read with Section 19 of the RFCTLARR Act for acquiring the
subject lands. The Collector and the SLAO, accordingly made
declarations dated 29/12/2016, 04/05/2017 and 13/07/2017. The
Board of Directors of the CIDCO, vide Board Resolution dated
15/03/2016, resolved to acquire the lands by entering into an
Agreement with the land owners. As regards the compensation to
be paid, such Agreement be placed before the Collector and the
SLAO for passing the Award on the basis of the Agreement. The
amount of compensation be worked out on the basis of the
RFCTLARR Act. The Committee consisting of the Officers of
CIDCO and one representative of the Collector and the SLAO was
constituted for determining the amount of compensation and
authorised Vice Chairman cum Managing Director of the CIDCO,
the Chief Administrator (New Town) and the Administrator of the
said project to implement the provisions of the said Resolution.
33 WP-4778-2022.odt
4-(b). The State Government on 31/05/2017 directed to
speed up the pending land acquisition of WNA. The Board of the
CIDCO passed Resolution on 03/11/2017 for acquisition of
119.175 Hectare land and worked out the compensation on the
basis of the RFCTLARR Act, to pay an amount equivalent to 25%
of the compensation computed as per the RFCTLARR Act and the
total amount of compensation to be paid to all the land owners of
119.175 Hectares should not exceed Rs.260.45 Crores. The
Committee constituted pursuant to the above-referred Board
Resolution dated 15/03/2016, in its meeting dated 22/01/2018,
decided to issue a public notice inviting the concerned land
owners for negotiation and settlement in connection with the
acquisition of 119.175 Hectares. The meeting was convened on
28/02/2018 by the said Committee with the land owners. The land
owners insisted on compensation at current rates as per the
RFCTLARR Act and not at the rates prevailing on the dates of
declarations under the L. A. Act. The said demand was not
acceptable. The Petitioners in eight [08] Writ Petitions agreed to
enter into an Agreement if the factor component of compensation
34 WP-4778-2022.odt
specified in schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, which is two [02],
was applied. The said demand was rejected by the Head Office,
except the demand of removal of slab while determining the
amount of compensation.
4-(c). The Board, by Resolution dated 13/12/2018, modified
the total amount of compensation and fixed the same at Rs.372.59
Crores. The said amount was worked out without following the
slab system contained in stamp duty reckoner rates. The
compensation amount was computed by applying flat rate. The
Collector, by communication dated 08/05/2019 to the Chief
Administrator informed that, the CIDCO should enter into
Agreement with the land owners and the same should be sent to
the SLAO for Consent Awards in terms of the Agreements. The
Chief Administrator entered into Agreements on 04/06/2019 with
thirty four [34] land owners, and by Agreement dated 14/06/2019,
with the remaining land owners. Only seventeen [17] land owners
were covered by eight [08] Writ Petitions. The total area covered
by the Agreements was only 14.135 Hectare and the total
compensation amount agreed upon was Rs.223.74 Crores.
35 WP-4778-2022.odt
4-(d). The Administrator of the said project, under his
covering letter dated 18/06/2019, forwarded the Agreements to the
SLAO, with the copies to the Collector and the Chief Administrator.
The said Agreements were not sent to the CIDCO at Bombay. The
Collector, vide letter dated 30/07/2019 addressed to the SLAO,
with a copy to the CIDCO's Office at Aurangabad, raised some
queries in the matter. The SLAO, vide letter dated 19/08/2019
addressed to the Chief Administrator, conveyed the Collector's
objection to the proposed award. The Chief Administrator
addressed a letter in reply to the SLAO dated 19/08/2019 and
dealt with the objections of the Collector and requested the SLAO
to pass the Award. The SLAO, vide letters dated 19/10/2019 and
30/10/2019 addressed to the CIDCO Office at Aurangabad,
requested for deposit of compensation amount payable to the
Petitioners in eight [08] Writ Petitions. The Managing Director of
CIDCO, Bombay, examined the office noting on 19/11/2019 and
remarked "examine and put up".
4-(e). The authorities of CIDCO at Bombay and Aurangabad
came to the conclusion that, the action of the Committee of
36 WP-4778-2022.odt
entering into the Agreements for 14.135 Hectors at the cost of
Rs.223.74 Crores was illegal and without approval of the Board of
Directors and decided to constitute a Committee of the Chief
Vigilance Officer (For short 'CVO') and others to examine exact
area required to be acquired and method of acquisition, so that
financial loss can be avoided. The Chief Administrator gave his
explanation. The CVO submitted its report dated 26/02/2020 by
observing that, the Committee of Chief Administrator (New Town)
exceeded the financial limits approved by the Board, the
Agreements signed by the said Committee were beyond the
approval of the Board, only essential area required for
infrastructure development should be acquired and remaining area
be deleted from the acquisition, remaining area of Nagar II and
Nagar IV be de-notified and the economic feasibility of the project
should be calculated. On the basis of the said report of CVO, the
Board of Directors, by Resolution dated 03/03/2020 resolved as
follows:- (i) proposal to request the State Government to de-notify
CIDCO from the entire notified area of the said project (ii) the
Committee constituted vide Board Resolution dated 15/03/2016 be
37 WP-4778-2022.odt
dissolved with immediate effect (iii) the acquisition process be
stopped / withdrawn immediately (iv) the proposal of not acquiring
any new land was approved (v) the proposal not to undertake new
infrastructure development work unless it was profitable and file
Review Application in disposed off Writ Petition.
4-(f). The Writ Petitions are misconceived and not
maintainable. The relief sought in the Petitions is in the realm of
private law, and therefore, no Writ be issued under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The case was not covered by Section
126(1)(a) and the subject matter was covered by Section 126(1)(c)
of the MRTP Act. There was no specific directions from the State
Government to acquire the lands as contemplated under the L. A.
Act and the RFCTLARR Act. The provisions of the L. A. Act were
applicable to the acquisition under Section 126 of the MRTP Act,
and therefore, the Collector cannot proceed with the acquisition
unless an order from the Government is obtained under Section 7
of the L. A. Act.
4-(g). In the Additional Affidavit dated 03/10/2023, it is
contended by Respondent Nos.5 to 7 that, acts and actions of
38 WP-4778-2022.odt
Negotiation Committee in meeting dated 28/05/2019 followed by
Consent Agreements were collusive in nature, without due
authorization from the Board of Directors of the CIDCO and
contrary to the interest of the CIDCO. The WNA does not fall
within the ambit of Section 2(2) of the MRTP and consequently,
does not fall under Section 26(1)(c) of the MRTP. It is open for
the Acquiring Body to withdraw from the acquisition, therefore, the
direction prayed in the Petitions does not lie. The Head Office of
CIDCO in New Mumbai, and particularly, the Managing Director
and Joint Managing Director were not aware of the order dated
13/08/2019 in Writ Petition No.10085/2019 and they became
aware of the order only on 13/11/2009, when the question of
releasing compensation amount arose. The Negotiation
Committee ought to have informed the Board of Director of CIDCO
immediately after entering into the Consent Agreements. The
Board of Directors never approved those Consent Agreements.
Most of the averments in the Additional Affidavit are repetition from
the Affidavit of Respondent Nos.5 to 7 under the law.
39 WP-4778-2022.odt
5. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the
learned Senior Advocate for contesting Respondent Nos.5 to 7 at
length. Perused the papers on record.
6. Almost all the aspects in the matters are undisputed.
Those undisputed aspects are summarized below :
[i] The CIDCO was appointed as the Special Planning
Authority for WNA under Section 40 of the MRTP Act. The notified
area is divided into four Nagars i.e. Nagar - I, II, III and IV. The
Petitioners are the owners of the lands in Nagar - IV at Golwadi
Village.
[ii] The Draft Development Plan of WNA came to be
published by the CIDCO under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, which
was submitted by the State Government for sanction, wherein, it
was proposed to acquire lands affected by D.P. Plan by entering
into an Agreement, submitting the Agreement to the SLAO for
declaring the Consent Award and compulsory acquisition of
minimum 25% land of each land holder for infrastructure purpose.
40 WP-4778-2022.odt
[iii] The State Government accorded sanction to the
Development Plan of WNA under Section 31 of the MRTP Act,
including Consent Acquisition Policy. The State Government
introduced the policy of acquisition by consent i.e. direct purchase
and proposed to pay 25% additional compensation and forfeiting
the right to seek enhancement of compensation.
[iv] The original owners i.e. vendors of the Petitioners
requested for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' [For short
'NOC'] to sell the subject properties to the Petitioners and the
CIDCO issued the NOC to sell the reserved lands on certain
conditions. The Petitioners purchased the lands from the original
owners.
[v] The Board of Directors of the CIDCO passed the
Board Resolution No.11575 for consent acquisition of the lands
through negotiations.
[vi] The Declaration under Section 126(4) of the MRTP
Act, read with Section 19 of the RFCTLARR Act, were published
by the SLAO in respect of 18.96 Hectare of lands out of Nagar- IV,
41 WP-4778-2022.odt
including the lands of the Petitioners, in the Official Gazette for
the acquisition of properties affected by various reservations in the
sanctioned Development Plan of WNA. The total notified lands
under acquisition of Nagar - II and Nagar - IV to complete the
project was 119.175 Hectare.
[vii] Vide Board Resolution No.11953 dated 03/11/2017,
the CIDCO amended earlier Board Resolution No.11575 dated
15/03/2016 as per the directions of the State Government and
provided for giving 25% additional amount on compensation
determined under the RFCTLARR Act. The estimated amount of
compensation for 119.175 Hectares was worked out to Rs.260.45
Crores up to 30/06/2017.
[viii] The land owners, whose lands were under acquisition
for WNA in Nagar - II and Nagar - IV, were called for negotiations.
The negotiations were held between the Land Acquisition
Committee and the land owners.
[ix] The Petitioners agreed to accept the market value on
the date of notification and not to apply slabs of ready reckoner
guidelines while computing the compensation.
42 WP-4778-2022.odt
[x] The Committee prepared revised calculation sheet
without applying the slabs of the ready reckoner guidelines up to
30/04/2018 and the total compensation for 119.175 Hectare land
was calculated to Rs.372.59 Crores and forwarded the same to
the Head Office of the CIDCO. As per the revised calculation, the
total estimated cost of acquisition for the Petitioners' lands was
worked out around Rs.200 Crores. The Head Office of the CIDCO
approved the said revised calculation.
[xi] The State Government issued Circular for not applying
the ready reckoner guidelines (slabs) while determination of
compensation amount for the lands under acquisition.
[xii] The Board of Directors gave approval to amend the
Board Resolution Nos.11575 and 11953 for calculation of
compensation amount without applying slabs of ready reckoner
guidelines. The process for consent acquisition was proceeded.
[xiii] The Agreements were entered between the CIDCO
and the Petitioners setting out the consent terms for passing the
Consent Award.
43 WP-4778-2022.odt
[xiv] The Consent Agreements were placed before the
Collector and the SLAO for passing the Consent Award and
making the payment by the CIDCO as per the land acquisition
policy and Board Resolution dated 15/03/2016.
[xv] One of the land owners under the acquisition filed
representations before the Respondents for passing the Award
and disbursement of compensation amount as the same was not
declared within forty five [45] days as agreed between the CIDCO
and the land owners.
[xvi] As no decision was taken on the representations of the
land owners, they filed Writ Petition bearing No.10085/2019 for
issuance of direction to pass the Consent Award. The said Writ
Petition was disposed off with the direction to the SLAO to pass
the Consent Award.
[xvii] The CIDCO received communication from the
Collector, raising certain queries regarding the methodology to be
adopted in passing the Consent Award.
44 WP-4778-2022.odt
[xviii] Pursuant to the queries raised by the Collector, the
CIDCO [Aurangabad Office of CIDCO] submitted the file to the
then Managing Director i.e. Head Office of CIDCO.
[xix] The State Government directed the Collector to pass
the Consent Award by communication dated 16/09/2019. The
Collector communicated his queries to the State Government and
sought guidance.
[xx] The Collector and the SLAO filed Civil Application
No.12648 of 2019 seeking extension of time from this Court in the
above-referred Writ Petition. This Court granted extension of
fifteen days [15] for passing the Consent Award.
[xxi] The State Government responded to the queries
raised by the Collector and directed to do the needful and ensure
that, the directions of this Court are not breached.
[xxii] The Collector approved the Consent Award, prepared
a Draft Award and raised demand of compensation to the CIDCO.
45 WP-4778-2022.odt
[xxiii] The Aurangabad Office of CIDCO submitted the
demand to the Head Office of CIDCO for depositing the
compensation amount to Collector for declaration of the Award.
[xxiv] As the directions in the above-referred Writ Petition
were not complied, Contempt Petition No.807/2019 came to be
filed.
[xxv] The Head Office of CIDCO raised the issue of non-
feasibility of acquisition of lands of the Petitioners on account of
unprecedented hike in the ready reckoner rates of the year 2016
and the Managing Director of CIDCO issued letter to the State
Government as well as IGR for verification of the ready reckoner
rates of the year 2017 in respect of village Golwadi.
[xxvi] The IGR submitted a report to the State Government
stating that, the ready reckoner rates for the year 2016 were
proper and were on the lower side than the valuation rates
adopted by the CIDCO, and the ready reckoner rates were
finalized after following the due procedure of law.
46 WP-4778-2022.odt
[xxvii] The Managing Director of the CIDCO questioned the
action of the Committee in the process of finalizing the rates.
[xxviii] The CIDCO passed Board Resolution on 03/03/2020
bearing No.12310, resolving to withdraw from acquisition of WNA
and further to file Review Application to review the order dated
13/08/2019 passed in Writ Petition No.10085/2019.
[xxix] The said Review Application came to be heard and
dismissed / rejected on 02/12/2022.
[xxx] Against the dismissal of the said Review Application,
the CIDCO preferred a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (C)
No.D-2174/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came
to be dismissed.
7. The learned Senior Advocate for the CIDCO raised the
issue of maintainability of these Writ Petitions. It is his contention
that, the Agreements between the Petitioners and the CIDCO
cannot be enforced in the Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. According to him, the said Agreements
47 WP-4778-2022.odt
were void and against the interest of CIDCO, as they violate the
policy of the State Government and CIDCO.
8. On the point of maintainability, it is the contention of
the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that, the acquisition of the
Petitioners' lands was based on the declarations issued under
Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act read with Section 19 of the
RFCTLARR Act. It is further contended that, the CIDCO had
entered into the Agreements and placed the same before the
Collector for declaration of the Award, and by not paying the
compensation, the Petitioners were dispossessed of their lands
without authority of law and in violation of Constitutional guarantee
under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The
only remedy available was the invocation of jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on
the Judgment in ABL International Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.; (2004) 3 SCC 553,
wherein, after considering various Judgments, it is observed that,
in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to
entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and
there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the
48 WP-4778-2022.odt
same arises out of a contractual obligation and or involves some
disputed questions of fact.
9. As seen from the pleadings of both the sides and
submissions advanced by both the sides, and as observed above,
almost all the factual aspects in the Writ Petitions are not in
dispute and are based on the documents. Undisputedly, the
Respondents are the State and its instrumentalities. In the above
Writ Petition No.10085/2019 [Vijaysingh Vithalsingh Pardeshi And
Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others], similar
directions were prayed and the Respondents herein were also the
Respondents in the said Writ Petition and no such issue of
maintainability was raised, as seen from the order dated
13/08/2019, by which, the Writ Petition was disposed off. Thus, in
light of this discussion, the contention in respect of maintainability
of the Petitions raised by Respondent Nos.5 to 7 is rejected.
10. The main contention of the learned Senior Advocate
for the CIDCO is that, the action of the Negotiation Committee in
entering into the Consent Agreements is contrary to the
Government Resolutions of May and September - 2015 and
49 WP-4778-2022.odt
September - 2016, read with the Board Resolutions dated
15/03/2016, 03/11/2017 and 13/12/2018, as the Agreement was
selective Consent Agreements with twenty [20] land owners for an
aggregate area of only 14.135 Hectares of land, instead of
entering into the Consent Agreements with all the landowners for
the entire area of 119.17 hectares of land. Further, voluntary offer
of advance possession of the land was ultra vires and taking such
advance possession was beyond the powers of the Committee.
He placed reliance on (i) M/s. JIT Ram Shiv Kumar and Others Vs.
State of Haryana and Others; (1981) 1 SCC 11, (ii) Shriram R.
Deshprabhu Vs. State of Goa; 2022 SCC Online Bom 1295, (iii)
Nova Ads Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others ;
(2015) 13 SCC 257, and (iv) Rameshwar and Others Vs. State of
Haryana and Others; (2018) 6 SCC 215. On the facts in the cases
therein, it has been observed that :
when the Officer of the Government or a public authority acts
outside the scope of his or its authority, the plea of promissory
estoppel is not available. The Constitution has enacted Article 299
so as to save the Government liability arising out of unauthorized
acts of its officers and contracts not duly executed. The doctrine
of ultra virus will come into operation and the Government cannot
be held bound by the unauthorized acts of its officers. The person
dealing with the agent of the Government must be held to have
50 WP-4778-2022.odt
notice of the limitations of his authority. It would be open to the
authority to plead and prove that there were special considerations
which necessitated his not being able to comply with his
obligations in public interest. If the beneficiaries have benefited
from the illegal and ultra virus act of the officers, they cannot insist
on retaining such benefits. The public body invested with statutory
powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers and it
must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it, act in
good faith and reasonably. The withdrawal from the acquisition
[Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (Supra)] was
found to have been done for the benefit of builders / private
entities and through an unholy nexus between the Government
machinery and the builders / private entities and it was held that,
when a custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by
considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is
vested, such exercise is nothing but colourable exercise of power
and that power of the State to acquire lands of private persons
compulsorily cannot be overstretched to legitimize a patently
illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken to favour certain private
persons.
11. To the above contention, the learned Advocate for the
Petitioners contended that, the Petitioners were the only persons,
who agreed to accept the compensation at the market rates, which
were agreed by the Committee as well as the Board and the
Committee acquired the land consciously, which were required for
development activities, and to avoid the further litigation, the
Agreements were entered. The Committee acted well within its
powers, and from time to time, the approval was taken from the
Board of Directors of the CIDCO.
51 WP-4778-2022.odt
12. There is no dispute, and it is a matter of record, that
the Board of the CIDCO, by Board Resolution in its meeting dated
15/03/2016, appointed the Committee. The said Resolution
No.11575 is reproduced below :-
"RESOLUTION NO: 11575
RESOLVED THAT the Board do and hereby accord approval to constitute
the Committee comprising of the following:
1 Chief Administrator (New Towns), CIDCO Chairman
2 Administrator (A'bad/Waluj), CIDCO. Member Secretary
3 Land Acquisition Officer (Dy. Collector Member
appointed by the Collector)
4 Land Valuation Officer, CIDCO Member
5 Supt. Engineer (NT), CIDCO Member
6 Sr. Planner (NT), CIDCO Member
7 Associate Planner (CIDCO) Member
8 Sr. Accounts Officer, CIDCO Member
9 Legal Advisor Member
"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT, the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the
Committee will be as follows:
i. To give recommendation on compensation as per Land Acquisition Act
enforceable through negotiations / consent, subject to the condition that
such compensation shall not be more than what is permissible under the
provisions of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013
(LARR Act, 2013) or any other Act which is applicable.
ii. To facilitate in getting the consent award passed from Special Land
Acquisition Officer/District Collector.
"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Administrator will be authorised to
enter into Consent Agreement with the land owner on above decided rates
by Committee and the Administrator will submit such consent agreement
between CIDCO and land owner, to the land acquisition authority and
52 WP-4778-2022.odt
which in turn will facilitate to pass an award under appropriate Land
Acquisition Act or any other Act enforceable."
"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Board do and hereby authorize the
VC&MD CA(NT) / Administrator (Waluj) to implement the above
Resolutions."
13. There can be no dispute on the principles laid down in
the above-referred Judgments. In the present matters, the
documents on record go to show that, the Committee comprised of
the high officials of the CIDCO and there was consultation by the
Committee with the Head Office of the CIDCO / Managing Director
in the matter from time to time. One cannot lose sight of the
undisputed aspect that in Review Application No.26/2021 filed in
the above Writ Petition No.10085/2019, one of the ground was
that, the Chief Administrator and the Officers at Aurangabad had
exceeded their powers delegated to them by the board and they
acted hand-in-glove in agreeing to pay exorbitant compensation
without knowledge and consent of the Head Office, along with
other grounds, such as non-maintainability of the Petition and the
order in the said Application was obtained in collusion and by
practicing fraud. In short, similar challenge was raised. This Court
considered the grounds raised in the said Review Application and
53 WP-4778-2022.odt
dismissed the same by order dated 02/12/2022. It would be apt to
reproduce the observations of this Court made in the said order
dismissing the Review Application :
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions and
perused the papers. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate
that the CIDCO is seeking review of the order passed by this
Court solely on the ground of alleged fraud or
misrepresentation. It is not seeking to demonstrate any formal
defect or error apparent on the face of the record. It is trite that
even fraud vitiates everything and apart from the grounds which
are normally to be taken note of and empower the Courts to
undertake a review, the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation
in obtaining the order from the Court is also a well accepted
ground to go into and examine all the aspects touching the
alleged fraud.
11. As can be discerned, initially the review petition was
preferred with the sole allegation that the Chief Administrator at
Aurangabad had kept the head office at Mumbai in dark and had
connived with the writ petitioners in agreeing to pay exorbitant
compensation which was beyond the purview of the powers
delegated to him. It is only after the writ petitioners in their reply
demonstrated that the decision to arrive at a consent has to be
initiated and was accordingly taken by the committee of several
officers apart from the Chief Administrator which not only
included the officers of CIDCO but even the officers of the State
Government of the rank of Deputy Collector and a legal advisor,
that the CIDCO has made an attempt to improvise and is
seeking to implead these members of the committee by moving
civil application no. 2005 of 2021. However, conspicuously, the
portion to be added in their respect only seeks to allege that
they have acted without any authorization from the board of
directors of the CIDCO. Conspicuously, no attempt has been
made to attribute any malice on any of the other members of the
committee. This very circumstance is clearly indicative of the
fact that the allegations regarding fraud which the CIDCO
initially made against the Chief Administrator at Aurangabad,
have got diluted.
12. We are emboldened to make such observation for one
54 WP-4778-2022.odt
more reason. According to CIDCO, a committee comprising of
vigilance officer and couple of high ranked officials of CIDCO
was constituted to undertake an inquiry pursuant to which the
committee has taken a decision which is also available on the
record. However, conspicuously, that committee in its decision
(page 57) though has examined all the aspects, has
conspicuously omitted to reach any conclusion regarding the
alleged fraud albeit it has expressed some doubt and has also
expressed that it would not be viable to acquire the properties at
such a huge rate.
13. Again, the committee constituted under resolution no.
11575 of the board of directors dated 15-03-2016 had again
convened its meeting on 20-01-2020 and its minutes have been
produced on the record (page 206) of the review petition. It is
quite conspicuous that the committee seems to have
reconsidered all the aspects and has indicated and resolved that
the rate agreed by the committee for the consent award was
justified. Even the committee went to the extent of examining
the resolutions of the board of directors and has laboured to
demonstrate that it was clearly within their powers and ambit to
reach at the conclusion regarding the rate to be granted in
respect of compensation to be paid to the writ petitioners. It is
quite pertinent to note that all the members of the committee
were present at the meeting and have passed this resolution
unanimously. One wonders as to how in view of such state-of-
affairs, the CIDCO is still justifying its decision to persist with the
review when the same committee which had given consent for
passing the consent award, has reconsidered everything and
has tried to justify its decision. It cannot be said that it is a
matter of fraud much less involving its Chief Administrator at
Aurangabad.
14. Interestingly, when we put a query to Mr. Naphade, as to
if the CIDCO has taken at any disciplinary proceeding against
any of its erring officials, on instructions, he replied in the
negative. If on the one hand, the CIDCO is seeking review on
the sole ground of its the then Chief Administrator having
indulged in some misdeeds in enabling the writ petitioners to
obtain the order of this Court for passing of consent award, still,
it has for last more than 3 years, in spite of having undertaken
an independent scrutiny and had constituted the committee but
has conspicuously omitted to take any decision commensurate
55 WP-4778-2022.odt
with its stand of alleged fraud and to proceed against the erring
officials. If such is the scenario, the only ground being relied
upon by the CIDCO to demonstrate that this Court should
undertake a review of its order, falls to the ground.
15. The submission of Mr. Naphade that the writ petition
itself was not maintainable, in our considered view, cannot be a
ground to exercise the power of review, more so, when
admittedly, the order under review was passed on the basis of
the concession or on the basis of a mutual understanding
regarding passing of the consent award.
16. There is no substance in the review petition. It is
dismissed.
17. Civil applications are disposed of."
15. We find no merit in the contention of the learned
Senior Advocate for the CIDCO that, the order passed in the said
Review Application will have no bearing on the present dispute, for
the reason that, the issue involved in the said Petition and in the
present Petitions is similar, and merely because the preliminary
inquiry was directed against the Members of the Negotiation
Committee regarding entering into the Consent Agreement at
much higher rates in relation to the WNA project, cannot lead to
take a different view, as taken in the said Writ Petition, as the
Committee's decision resulting in the Consent Agreements were
approved by the Board of CIDCO. It is also a matter of record
that, after dismissal of the said Review Application, the CIDCO
56 WP-4778-2022.odt
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above-
referred SLP, which came to be disposed off by order dated
27/02/2023, which reads as under :
" Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, we
see no reason to entertain the instant petition(s) taking in view
the inordinate delay in filing the petition(s).
The special leave petition(s) is / are, accordingly, disposed of
on the ground of delay. "
16. In light of the above aspects of the matters, the above-
referred Judgments would not be of any assistance for the CIDCO.
In this backdrop of the matter, the contention that, Consent
Agreements were ultra vires, falls down.
17. The another contention raised by the learned Senior
Advocate for the CIDCO is that, the Board Resolutions passed by
the CIDCO were the policy decision and since the Negotiation
Committee without looking into the financial feasibility of the
project executed the Consent Agreements and took the advance
possession of the land without Board's approval and the economic
advisor carried out the exercise to ascertain the project feasibility
and concluded that, the project was not financially viable. An
independent assessment was done by the experts in the field, and
57 WP-4778-2022.odt
it was decided to withdraw from the acquisition and de-notify the
WNA. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the
decisions of [i] SLAO Vs. Godrej Boyce; 1988 (1) SCC 50, [ii]
Mahal Pictures Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and
Others; MANU/MH/5714/2024, and [iii] Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of
India and Others; (2012) 6 SCC 502.
18. The ratio of the aforesaid Judgments, which can be
culled out is that, if the Government is reluctant to go ahead with
the acquisition in view of genuine difficulties, it can hardly be
blamed. The government definitely cannot be compelled to
acquire the land, as taking up a particular project will lie in its
executive wisdom and no writ of mandamus can be issued
directing to acquire the said land. The matters relating to framing
and implementation of policy primarily fall in the domain of the
Government. The Government enjoys freedom in relation to
framing of policies and also the power to change the same and the
Courts would decline to exercise the power and judicial review in
relation to the policy matters. It is true that, in the matters at hand,
the CIDCO has withdrawn from the acquisition. Undisputedly, the
58 WP-4778-2022.odt
acquisition proceedings for the WNA were undertaken pursuant to
the provisions of the MRTP Act. It is also not in dispute that, the
possession of the Petitioners' lands have been taken by the
CIDCO at the time of entering into the Consent Agreements. The
learned Advocate for the Petitioners relied on the Judgments of
the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others; (2011) 3
SCC 1, wherein, the issue for determination was whether the
MRTP Act was a self-contained Code or not, if so, to what effect;
and whether, in any event, all the provisions of the L. A. Act, as
amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 with emphasis on Section 11-
A can be read into the provisions of the MRTP Act. The
Constitution Bench held that, the MRTP Act was a Code in itself
and while examining the distinctions between the statutory
provisions of the L. A Act and the MRTP Act, noted that, under the
L. A. Act, the Government can withdraw from acquisition of any
land before possession is taken in terms of Section 48 of the Act,
whereas, under the MRTP Act, there was no provision
empowering the planning authority from de-notifying land from
59 WP-4778-2022.odt
acquisition, however, in terms of Section 50, it has power to delete
from the reservation, designation for an interim draft plan.
19. In the Petitions at hand, admittedly no challenge is
raised to the Notification withdrawing from the acquisition. The
prayer is for directions to pass the Consent Award and disburse
the compensation with interest. The relevant provision of the
MRTP Act, around which the issue revolves, is Section 126 of the
MRTP Act. The said provision is reproduced below :
"126. Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in
plans ;
(1) When after the publication of a draft regional Plan, a
Development or any other plan or town planning scheme, any
land is required or reserved for any of the public purposes
specified in any plan or scheme under this Act at any time the
Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may
be, [any Appropriate Authority may, except as otherwise provided
in Section 113A] acquire the land, -
(a) by agreement by paying an amount agreed to, or
(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner
or the lessee, subject, however, to the lessee-paying the
lessor or depositing with the Planning Authority,
Development Authority or Appropriate Authority, as the
case may be, for payment to the lessor, an amount
equivalent to the value of the lessor's interest to be
determined by any of the said Authorities concerned on the
basis of the principles laid down in the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable
Development Rights (TDR) against the area of land
surrendered free of cost and free from all encumbrances,
60 WP-4778-2022.odt
and also further additional Floor Space Index or
Transferable Development Rights against the development
or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at
his cost, as the Final Development Control Regulations
prepared in this behalf provide, or
(c) by making an application to the State Government for
acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and the land (together with the amenity, if any, so
developed or constructed) so acquired by agreement or by
grant of Floor Space Index or additional Floor Space Index
or Transferable Development Rights under this sections or
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the case may be,
shall vest absolutely free from all encumbrances in the
Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case
may be, any Appropriate Authority.
(2) On receipt of such application, if the State Government is
satisfied that the and specified in the application is needed for the
public purpose therein specified, or if the State Government
(except in cases falling under Section 49 and except as provided
in Section 113A) itself is of opinion that any land included in any
such plan is needed for any public purpose, it may make a
declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette, in the manner
provided in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect
of the said land, The declaration so published shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, be deemed to
be a declaration duly made under the said section:
[Provided that, subject to the provisions of Sub-section
(4), no such declaration shall be made after the expiry of
one year from the date of publication of the draft Regional
Plan, Development Plan or any other Plan, or Scheme, as
the case may be.
(3) On publication of a declaration under the said Section 6, the
Collector shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of the land
under the said Act; and the provisions of that Act shall apply to
the acquisition of the said land with the modification that the
market value of the land shall be, -
(i) where the land is to be acquired for the purposes of a
new town, the market value prevailing on the date of
publication of the notification constituting or declaring the
Development Authority for such town;
(ii) where the land is acquired for the purposes of a Special
61 WP-4778-2022.odt
Planning Authority, the market value prevailing on the date of
publication of the notification of the area as an undeveloped
area; and
(iii) in any other case the market value on the date of
publication of the interim development plan, the draft
development plan or the plan for the area or areas for
comprehensive development, whichever is earlier, or as the
case may be the date or publication of the draft town
planning scheme:
Provided that, nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the date
for the purpose of determining the market value of land in
respect of which proceedings for acquisition commenced
before the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act, 1972:
Provided further that, for the purpose of Clause (ii) of this
Sub-section, the market value in respect of land included in
any undeveloped area notified under Sub-section (1) of
Section 40 prior to the commencement of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act,
1972, shall be the market value prevailing on the date of
such commencement.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to Sub-
section (2) and Sub-section (3), if a declaration,] is not made,
within the period referred to in Sub-section (2) (or having been
made, the aforesaid period expired on the commencement of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning [(Amendment) Act,
1993)], the State Government may make a fresh declaration for
acquiring the land under the Land of Acquisition Act, 1894, in the
manner provided by Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section,
subject to the modification that the market value of the land shall
be the market value at the date of declaration in the Official
Gazette, made for acquiring the land afresh. "
20. In Manohar Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others; (2012) 3 SCC 619, relied by the learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, in support of his contention that, on an Application to
62 WP-4778-2022.odt
the State Government under Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act,
the land vests absolutely with the planning authority. The relevant
observations made in Paragraph No.119 are reproduced below :
"119. The appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Land Acquisition Officer v. Godrej & Boyce 15 in support of their
contention, that the purpose for acquisition must continue until
possession is taken. In that matter this Court held that the title to
the land vests in the Government only when the possession is
taken. It is, however, material to note that this judgment is
concerning Section 16 of the L A Act. As far as this submission is
concerned, as held by K. Ramaswamy, J. in Industrial
Development Investment Co. case14, one must note that the
scheme of the MRTP Act is different from that under the LA Act.
In paras 11 and 12 of this judgment in Industrial Development
Investment Co. case14 he has specifically held that Section
126(1) of the MRTP Act is a substitute for the notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act. A declaration under Section 126(2) is
equivalent to a declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act. The
objections of the persons concerned are considered before such
land gets earmarked for public purpose in the plan. Therefore,
there is no need of any enquiry as under Section 5-A of the LA
Act. Section 26(1)(c) specifically states that when an application
is made to the State Government for acquiring the land under the
LA Act, the land vests absolutely with the Planning Authority.
Therefore, it was held that in the scheme of the MRTP Act, it is
not necessary that the original public purpose should continue to
exist till the award was made and possession taken. "
21. As noted above, while considering the undisputed
aspects, the possession of the Petitioners' lands are taken by the
CIDCO. As seen from the documents on record, the acquisition of
the subject lands is initiated by making an Application to the
63 WP-4778-2022.odt
Collector under Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act, and thereafter,
CIDCO followed up the matter and deposited 30% of the
estimated cost of acquisition with the Collector. Further, the
learned Advocate for the Petitioners contended that, the CIDCO's
stand that, the State Government has withdrawn from the
acquisition by issuing Notification under Section 48 of the L. A.
Act, is contrary to its stand taken in one Writ Petition
No.6917/2004 filed by the CIDCO before this Court and decided
on 06/10/2017, which was the case regarding acquisition initiated
under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act and the land owners
approached the State Government under Section 48 of the L. A.
Act, for deletion of land from acquisition, which was allowed by the
concerned Minister and the said order of Minister was challenged
by the CIDCO before this Court in the said Writ Petition. The
contention of the CIDCO in the said Writ Petition is reproduced
below :
"(29) It is submitted by the Learned Counsel that, the application
thus made by respondent No. 7 for deletion of the plot in question
from the acquisition itself was not maintainable. He submits that,
since the acquisition of the land in question was not under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the question of
applicability of Section 48 of the said Act for deletion of the plot in
question from acquisition did not arise. The learned counsel
64 WP-4778-2022.odt
submits that, though this Court in the order passed in the Writ
Petition filed by the respondent No. 7 and several other land
owners had made it clear that, the owners could approach the
CIDCO or the State Government praying for either concession or
deletion of the lands as they continued in possession, would not
create any remedy in favour of the respondent No. 7 for invoking
Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which provision is
not extended to the acquisitions made under the provision of
Section 126 of the said M.R.T.P. Act."
22. After considering the above submissions, this Court
observed in Paragraph Nos.91 and 100 as under :
"(91) Insofar as the issue whether Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition Act is applicable to the acquisition initiated under the
provisions of M.R.T.P. Act or not is concerned, in our view, in
view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in case of
Girnar Traders (3) (supra), in case of Special Land Acquisition
Officer, KIADB, Mysore (supra) and Judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in case of Hanumanrao Morbaji Gudadhe
(Supra), remedy under Section 48 cannot be attracted in case of
acquisition initiated under M.R.T.P. Act. The said application
made by respondent No. 7 before respondent No. 2 for seeking
deletion of the land from acquisition itself was not maintainable. In
our view, the Learned Minister for Revenue and Forest
Department had acted without jurisdiction, without authority of law
by entertaining the application purported to have been filed by the
respondent No.7 under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
(100) In our view, the principles of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in case of Girnar Traders (3) (supra), in case of Special
Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore (supra) and Judgment of
this Court in case of Hanumanrao Morbaji Gudadhe (supra)
squarely apply to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound
by this Judgment. In our view, the application, thus, filed by the
respondent No. 7 purportedly under Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 itself was not maintainable and thus, the
impugned order passed by the Learned Minister for Revenue &
Forest Department was totally without jurisdiction, without
authority of law and illegal."
65 WP-4778-2022.odt
23. In view of the above aspects, the contention of the
learned Senior Advocate for the CIDCO that, the Writ Petitions be
dismissed, falls down.
24. Further, reliance is placed by the learned Senior
Advocate for the CIDCO on (i) Shree Vinayak Builders and
Developers, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others; 2022
SCC Online Bom 1562, (ii) Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bombay and Others Vs. M/s Godrej and Boyce; (1988) 1 SCC 50,
(iii) Mahal Pictures Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India in Writ
Petition No.2024/2014 decided on 26/08/2024, (iv) Rajbir Singh
Dalal Vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Another ;
(2008) 9 SCC 284. In the light of the undisputed aspects in the
matters and the settled legal position in respect of the acquisition
under the MRTP Act, these Judgments are of no assistance to the
CIDCO. The facts and circumstances of the present matters
materially differ from the facts and circumstances of the said
cases.
66 WP-4778-2022.odt
25. As regards the case of CIDCO that, there was an
unprecedented hike in the ready reckoner rates of the Golwadi
area, where the subject lands are situated, for the year 2016,
undisputedly, the IGR, who was called upon to throw light on the
same, had opined that, the read reckoner rates of the year 2016
were realistic and lower than the rates offered by the CIDCO. The
said Communication from the IGR is dated 23/12/2019 and is
placed at 'Exhibit - N', Pages - 152 to 155 of Writ Petition
No.4778/2022.
26. Thus, in the light of the above-referred legal positions,
we find merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioners that, the land vests with the CIDCO, and once the land
vests, the only course remains to follow is compensating the land
owners. As the above-referred provisions of the MRTP Act do not
contemplate the hybrid mode or method of acquiring the land, the
contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the CIDCO that, the
land does not vest as it was hybrid mode of acquisition, has no
legal support. The contention that, the Petitioners were not the
original land owners and they calculatedly purchased the land to
67 WP-4778-2022.odt
earn unjust profit, has no substance, as the Petitioners purchased
the subject lands from the original owners after obtaining NOC
from the CIDCO. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate
for the CIDCO that, the possession was not given as contemplated
under the applicable statutes and it was pursuant to the Consent
Agreement, was an advance and voluntary, and the possession
was given to CIDCO, and not to the Collector or the SLAO, and no
Award was passed either prior to or post possession being handed
over to CIDCO, will not have any bearing for the reason that, there
is no dispute on the factual aspects that more than 50% land of
the Petitioners governed by the Consent Agreements have been
utilized by the CIDCO for erecting infrastructures like Stadium,
Roads, and other facilities. Moreover, the said possession was in
consonance with the Board Resolution dated 15/03/2016.
27. The amount arrived at after recalculation was also
approved by the Board of Directors. True it is that, the amount of
compensation agreed between the Petitioners and the Board goes
around 200 Crores for 12.05 Hectares of land. In the backdrop of
the factual matrix of the matter and legal position, the Petitioners
68 WP-4778-2022.odt
cannot be deprived of compensation towards acquisition of their
lands by the CIDCO. In its Additional Affidavit, the CIDCO has
stated that, the CIDCO is the Government Company, which acts
through the Board of Directors for its decision, is designated as
New Town Development Authority and also being a Special
Planning Authority, with a view to make a planned city notified for
it, by carving out plots for various purposes (such as Residential,
Commercial, Infrastructure, Social amenities etc.) has to allot the
plots on lease basis and from the lease premium charge, it
recovers amount spent over for acquisition, infrastructural
developments, establishment of office and maintenance of office
staff etc. This shows that, the CIDCO is also a profit-making
entity.
28. In light of the above discussion, the only course open
is to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to pass the
Consent Award and disburse the compensation to the Petitioners
as per the Consent Agreement. As the Petitioners are deprived of
the compensation after executing the Consent Agreement, we
find it appropriate to grant interest @ 6% per annum from the date
69 WP-4778-2022.odt
of passing Consent Award till the amount is paid. Thus, we
proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
[I] The Respondent No.3 - Collector and Respondent No.4 -
SLAO are directed to pass the Consent Award pursuant to
the Consent Agreements between the Petitioner and the
CIDCO, within a period of three [03] months from today.
[II] The CIDCO is directed to pay the amount of compensation to
the Petitioners as per the Consent Award along with interest @
6% per annum from the date of Consent Award till its
realization.
[III] The Writ Petitions are disposed off accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R. G. AVACHAT, J.]
Sameer
