2012 Supreme(Bom) 809
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
A.S. OKA & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
Ashok s/o Chandrabhan Aagle
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.3498 OF 2012 WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.3499 TO 3440, 3466 TO 3469, 3472, 3473, 19, 1141, 1145 AND 3317 OF 2012
Decided on: 18-04-2012
For the Petitioner:G.S. Patil, Smt. B.S. Karhale, Smt. Bhagyashree S. Karhale, Suresh N. Rodge, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, S.B. Pulkundwar, V.H. Dighe, S.K. Kadam, AGPs, R3, S.G. Sangle, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that the State Government is obligated to pay rental compensation as per the Government Resolution without the landowner having to apply for it.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Government Resolution - 1st December, 1972, 2nd April, 1979 - Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11 of the said Act - Section 17 of the said Act
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the issue of rental compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 1st December, 1972, and 2nd April, 1979, for possession of land before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court found that the State Government is obligated to pay rental compensation without the landowner having to apply for it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government is responsible for paying rental compensation as per the Government Resolution, and directed the concerned officers to examine cases and release rental compensation to landowners within four months. The court also directed the State Government to circulate the judgment to relevant authorities and consider issuing directions to promptly pay rental compensation to entitled landowners.
Issues: The issues involved the obligation of the State Government to pay rental compensation as per the Government Resolution, and the responsibility of the officers to examine and release rental compensation to landowners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government is obligated to pay rental compensation as per the Government Resolution without the landowner having to apply for it, and directed the concerned officers to promptly release rental compensation to entitled landowners.
Final Decision: The court made the rule partly absolute and disposed of the petitions accordingly, issuing directions for the examination and release of rental compensation to landowners by the State Government.
Oka, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders waive notice for the State of Maharashtra and Special Land Acquisition Officers in the respective writ petitions.
2. Considering the nature of the order which we propose to pass, service of notice of rule on Respondent No.3 is dispensed with.
3. We have come across a large number of petitions filed in this Court, wherein the grievance of the petitioners is that rental compensation as contemplated by the Government Resolution dated 1st December, 1972, as amended by Government Resolution dated 2nd April, 1979, has not been paid. Several litigants, who have made representations before the Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding grant of rental compensation, have approached this Court with a grievance that even their representations have not been decided and, therefore, in large number of petitions, this Court has issued directions to the concerned authorities to decide the representations.
4. In number of cases, considering the exigencies, various departments of the State Government, and in particular the Irrigation Department, have taken over possession of the lands which are required for public purpose, even before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act") is issued. The possession has been taken over by private negotiations with the owners/holders. The said Act is a complete code in itself. The said Act does not provide for taking possession of a land which is required to be acquired for public purpose, even before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings by issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. On this aspect, it will be necessary to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. vs DDA and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1904. It will be useful to advert to paragraph 18 of the said decision which reads thus;
"18. In a case where the land-owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded." (underlines added) What is observed by the Apex Court is that in such a situation, even after possession is taken over by a department of the government, the title of the land proposed to be acquired continues to vest with the land owner and, therefore, in a given case it may be open to the land owner to seek recovery of possession, by taking out appropriate proceedings. It is, therefore, observed that when possession is taken over prior to the date on which preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act is issued, it will be equitable that the Collector may also determine rent or damages in respect of the use of the property to which the land owner is entitled, while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property.
5. As far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, the Government Resolution dated 1st December, 1972 deals with a situation where possession is taken over of the land proposed to be acquired before a notification