Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
B.R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Ministry of Cooperation, Marketing and Textile, Mantralaya and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2015
Decided On : 09-12-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Khapre, with Mr. K.P. Mahalley.
For the Respondent: Ms T.H. Udeshi, Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, with Mr. Ram Karode, Mr. C.S. Kaptan.
For the Intervener : Mr. H.R. Gadhia.
Headnote:Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24-Determination of compensation.-Since landowners attempted to drop land acquisition proceedings hence inquiry directed to be conducted in matter.
Perusal of clause (a) of sub - Section (1) of Section 24 would reveal that, in case of the land acquisition proceedings under the LAC Act, where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made out, then all the provisions of this Act (the Act of 2013) relating to determination of compensation shall apply. Admittedly, in the present case, Award under Section 11 has not been passed.
As such, the said case would be squarely covered under clause (a) of sub - Section (1) and at the most, owners of the land would be entitled to compensation to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013. Insofar as lapse is concerned, specific class is carved out by the Legislatures in sub - Section (2) of Section 24. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners would not fall in the category carved out under sub - Section (2).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11-Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24- Determination of compensation.-Where no award passed under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act therefore owners of land entitled to compensation to be determined under Section 24 of Act.
In the present case, an attempt has been made by the owners of the land in collusion with respondent No. 6 and may be some other Government Officers so as to overcome the orders passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 2551 of 2011 and the order passed by the State Government in the earlier revision. Court also notes that when the order passed by the State Government in the earlier revision challenging the order passed in the revision by the State Government was pending by way of Writ Petition No. 1187 of 2012 filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it was wholly inappropriate on the part of State Government to have entertained the issue with respect to the very subject- matter which was pending before the Court and that too, at the instance of same respondents. Court also has no hesitation to hold that respondent No. 6 herein has acted totally contrary to the interest of APMC.
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Section 52-B-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11-Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24-Appeal under Section 52-B.-Appeal under Section 52-B of Act to State Government is available only against order passed by Director of Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation.
It could be seen from the provision of Section 52-B of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act that the appeal which is available to the State Government is only against the decision taken or order passed by the Director. Admittedly, the order which is challenged before the Minister was not passed by the Director.
In that view of the matter, the appeal itself was not tenable. Neither the said Marketing Federation nor the Minister had any jurisdiction to pass the orders passed by them, it will have to be held that the orders so passed were without any authority of law and as such, void ab initio and non est. Once this Court hold that the said orders are non est, all subsequent proceedings including purported resolution of the petitioner, passed by respondent No. 6 and the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which was solely on the basis of observations made by Minister in his order dated 24.3.2015 would not be sustainable in law.
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. The present case is a classic example as to how some Officers of the State Government in collusion with the land owners have attempted to drop the land acquisition proceedings in respect of a piece of land which was reserved in the Development Plan as early as on 1.3.1993.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under :
In the Development Plan for Anjangaon Surji Municipal Council, which is approved by the State Government on 1.3.1993, the land which is subject matter of the present proceedings came to be reserved under Reservation No.10. The Development Plan was notified on 1.3.1993. It appears that, on 3.6.2003, the petitioner had submitted a proposal to the Collector, Amravati for acquiring the aforesaid land for the purpose of constructing fruit and vegetable market. The Collector, Amravati sanctioned the proposal for acquisition and as such, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the LAC Act”) came to be issued. It appears from the pleadings in the petition that, on the objection at the instance of respondent nos. 4 and 5, the proceedings were temporarily stayed on 6.10.2005. Nodoubt that it is disputed on behalf of the land owners that the same was at the instance of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (for short 'APMC'). However, nothing would turn on the same and we, therefore, do not find it necessary to dwell upon the same. It is not in dispute that, thereafter on 27.7.2008, the petitioner again made a request for proceeding with the acquisition proceedings and as such, the notification came to be published on 1.4.2010 u/s. 6 of the LAC Act. It appears that, thereafter respondent nos. 4 and 5 had filed a revision before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister for grant of stay to the land acquisition proceedings of the said land. The Hon'ble Minister initially granted stay vide order dt.17.8.2011. Later on, the Hon'ble Minister, after considering the rival submissions, dismissed the revision application filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5. The said order came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by respondent nos. 4 and 5 by way of Writ Petition No.1187 of 2012. It appears that one Giriraj Vinugopal Naidu had also challenged the acquisition proceedings directly before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2551 of 2011. The Division Bench of this Court did not find any merit in the petition filed by the said Giriraj and as such, dismissed the petition vide order dt.14.7.2011.
4. It appears that, in the meantime, ownership of the land had changed hands. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 had filed an application before this Court for impleading them as a party/respondents in the present proceedings and vide order dt.3.8.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, they are impleaded as respondents.
5. It will be interesting to note that, in the intervening period, certain interesting developments took place. One Mr. Madhukarrao Kamble, who has nothing to do either with the petitioner or owners of the land in question, wrote a letter to the Maharashtra State Marketing Board, Pune for staying the acquisition proceedings. Said Madhukarrao Kamble claims to be General Secretary of the Maharashtra Congress Committee. On the basis of the said letter, the said federation, who had no jurisdiction in the matter, addressed a communication to the petitioner, who, at the relevant time, was being managed by an Administrator/respondent no.6 herein stating therein that permission, as required u/s.12(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation), Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the APMC Act”) was not obtained by the APMC and as such, the APMC should submit proposal to the said federation u/s.12(1) of the APMC Act. It appears that respondent nos. 4 and 5 through their Power of Attorney challenged the said communication dt.21.11.
