Back
2005 Supreme(Bom) 1102
Bombay High Court
Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Appellants : Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority
Respondents: The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Judgment Date: 24, August, 2005
Citations:
Judges:R.M.S. Khandeparkar and V.M. Kanade, JJ.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11, 6, 4 and 48 - Delay and latches - Whether can affect a writ - Challenge to acquisition - Ground - Possession still with owners - Compensation was not paid at all - Delay of 19 years - Long delay - Petition not sustainable - Perfection of title does not arise - Section 48, Land Acquisition Act confirm if paper work is complete land vests in State - Order binding - No interference. - In fact the provisions of Section 48 pre-suppose that acquisition is complete and legal, it is also accepted as binding on the persons against whom it is made. It empowers the State, may be on an application of persons whose land was acquired to withdraw from acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In this case the respondents 3 and 4 are questioning the correctness of the acquisition proceedings itself, in which case there is no question of application of Section 48. The proper remedy for respondents 3 and 4 in the circumstances, may be a suit for declaration and for possession.
Another aspect which is liable to be noticed is that the total holdings of the respondents 3 and 4 were much more. They had prepared a development plan of their holdings of plots and the plots have already sold and therefore at the time when the acquisition proceeding s were completed in the year 1977 the plot holders were the persons who were entitled to get compensation and have been given compensation. The land, exclusion of which is sought by the respondents 3 and 4 by their application is the land covered by proposed roads and vacant sites described in the development plan, which was sanctioned years ago. Those vacant lands were required to be shown as vacant, where building development etc. has to be done in accordance with the sanctioned map and the sanctioning authority was the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation or the petitioner. After the award was made and compensation was paid to various occupants, possession of those lands have been taken, the lands were developed and after accepting development charges from those plot holders, the developed plots were given back to them. The respondents 3 and 4 have themselves acknowledged this aspect in their application. The respondents 3 and 4 have further submitted in that application that they (respondents 3 and 4) are also willing to pay the development charges. The contentions of the respondents 3 and 4 that they are in possession only of that land, which was earmarked as land for construction of roads etc. by development is on the face of it unacceptable because that is something which was required to be made as part of development which was never done by the respondents 3 and 4 and was done by petitioner. The entire land acquisition was completed when award under Section 12 of the Act was passed and compensation was paid and possession was taken by the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination therefore it can be held that it is a case where provisions of Section 48 are attracted.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 12, 48, 6, 11 and 4 - Compensation - Short paid - Objected to - in acquisition proceedings such question is not relevant - Records indicate development was liability of petitioner development authority - Factual possession was taken over for that purpose only - Section 48 shall not be applicable - Delayed application after 19 years also not entertainable. - It is not explained anywhere how the possession was with the petitioner when possession was given to plot holders and merely because the respondents 3 and 4 have ignored to develop the land by developing the roads, probably because the acquisition was pending in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the fact therefore that there has been acquisition proceedings and that the proceedings culminated in an award under Section 12 and that possession has been taken from various plot owners, who bought the land and compensation has been received by everyone, and that the compensation was proper. If the petitioner was in any manner dissatisfied by such award, it was open for the petitioner to make an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within the time stipulated therein, which is about 60 days. The respondent has lost not only six years, but 18 years or more before taking recourse to Section 48.
V.M. Kanade, J.
1. Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Minister for State (Revenue) dated 27/08/2004 in proceedings No. LPO 34/2003/748/Matter No. 90/A-3, Revenue Forest Department, Mantralaya. By the said order, the Minister of State (Revenue) deleted the land bearing No. 1130 situated at Mouje Chikhali, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, which was acquired by the Government purportedly exercising power vested in him under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
FACTS :
2. Petitioner is an authority which is established for the purpose of setting up a new township in Pimpri Chinchwad area by virtue of notification issued by the Government under Section 113(2) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (For short "M.R.T.P. Act"). The petitioner - authority was established in the year 1972. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government for the benefit of the petitioner since 1972 and large tracts of land were sought to be acquired, admeasuring 2400 Hectares in the designated area which was declared by the Government covering about 10 villages in and around Pimpri Chinchwad and Nigadi. In 1974, a draft development plan which was prepared under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act was submitted to the Government for obtaining its sanction and, accordingly, the plan was finally sanctioned on 08/09/1977.
3. The land bearing Gat No. 1130, admeasuring 2 Hectares situated at village Chikhali was notified for acquisition and, accordingly, a notification under Section 4 was issued on 09/03/1970. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 23/11/1972 and, finally, an award was passed on 13/08/1986 in respect of the said land. Thereafter, admittedly, on 09/09/1986, possession of the land was taken over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent No. 5 herein, who handed over the possession of the land to the petitioner - authority on the same day and since then the land is in possession of the petitioner - authority.
4. Thereafter, on 21/01/2004, respondent No. 7 filed an application before the Government under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for deletion of the land from the acquisition. The petitioner - authority filed their reply and it was painted out to the concerned authority that the petitioner had already taken possession of the land in 1986 and that the land was already allotted by the petitioners to several allottees and, as such, the question of deletion of this land from the acquisition would not arise. Respondent No. 3, however, by his order dated 27/08/2004 deleted the acquisition of the aforesaid land purportedly by exercising power vested in him under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner is challenging the said order by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Minister for State (Revenue), Government of Maharashtra as also the affidavit in reply which is filed by the Government. In the affidavit in reply, it is categorically admitted that the award in respect of the land was declared on 13/08/1986 and possession of the land was taken on 09/09/1986 and the possession was handed over to the petitioner - authority on the same day. In the said affidavit, panchanama which is annexed as Exhibit-B to the Petition is not disputed. Further, it is stated that by virtue of Mutation Entry No. 993 which was certified on 10/09/1986, the name of the petitioner was entered in the 7 x 12 Extract. A xerox copy of the Mutation Entry is annexed at Exhibit-1 to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Government in which it is clearly stated that the possession of the land was taken in the presence of panchas and the panchanama also was prepared in their presence in respect of handing over possession of the land to the petitioner - authority. Further, in the said affidavit, it is stated that the owners of the land were paid compens
