SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R. M. BORDE, N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
Shri Sahebrao Bhausaheb Kalate - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2373 of 2015, 9630 of 2017, 1163, 1165 of 2018 & C.A.No.307 of 2017, 324 of 2019
Decided On : 07-08-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.R.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sandeep S. Salunkhe, Mr.Girish Godbole a/w Mr.R.S.Kohli a/w Vikram Chavan a/w Preeti Limchiya a/w Ms.Dhvani Jain a/w Jatin Sahai a/w Khalid Kazi a/w K.Ayesha i/b M/s C.K.Legal
For the Respondent: Mr.P.P.More, Ms.S.V.Bharucha with Mr.M.S.Lagu, Mr.G.H.Keluskar, Mr.N.R.Bubna, Mr.Sandeep V.Marne

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11(A),6 and 17 - MRTP Act – Section 126(4),125 to 127 and 105-A - RFCTLAR & R Act – Section 113 – Land - Land Acquisition - Petitioner in Writ Petition, whose landed property is subjected to acquisition proceedings, is praying for issuance of writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction for quashing - Though the petitioner has prayed for issuance of declaration that acquisition proceedings in respect of suit land have lapsed in view of failure to comply with the provisions of section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 failure to pass an Award within a period of two years from date of declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, said relief has not been pressed in view of judgment of the Supreme Court - Land belonging to the petitioner, which is subjected to acquisition - Petitioner claims to be owner of the land and is also stated to be in possession of the property - Petitioner submits that the said land is reserved under Reservation for the purpose of extension of the primary school in the final development plan prepared for Municipal Corporation under the provisions of MRTP Act - During the first round of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner states that, taking recourse to the provisions of section 17 of Act of 1894 and by application of urgency clause, possession of the land was taken over illegally by acquisition authorities - Petitioner objected to the action of taking over illegal possession by the acquisition authorities and presented Writ Petition in this Court - Possession of land under acquisition came to be handed over back to the petitioner - Whether the land is acquired by the one authority or the other – Held, as has been recorded above, it is always permissible for the State Government to extend additional benefits to claimants, affected by the acquisition proceedings initiated, taking recourse to the provisions of MRTP Act - Section 105-A, as amended by virtue of the State Amendment, will have no impact so far as its applicability to existing provisions of Act of 2013 to the extent permitted by sections 125 and 126 of MRTP Act - Division Bench has also turned down the arguments advanced on behalf of Petitioner in the said writ petition that adopting the arguments as has been recorded above would render sub-section (2) of Section 105- A redundant - In the instant matter, no such decision has been taken by the State Government - Decision taken in relation to proceedings for acquisition initiated under Land Acquisition Act cannot be automatically made applicable to the proceedings for acquisition initiated under the MRTP Act - For the reasons, as recorded, court do not find any force in the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner - In the circumstances, Writ Petition stands rejected.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. BORDE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.9630 of 2017, whose landed property ad-measuring 27R out of Gat No.1 situated at Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune is subjected to acquisition proceedings, is praying for issuance of writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction for quashing and setting aside the Award dated 2nd June, 2017 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Unit No.2, Pimpri, Pune. Though the petitioner has prayed for issuance of declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of suit land have lapsed in view of failure to comply with the provisions of section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”) i.e. failure to pass an Award within a period of two years from the date of declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, said relief has not been pressed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 3 SCC Page 1. The land belonging to the petitioner, which is subjected to acquisition proceedings is situated at Wakad within jurisdictional area of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claims to be owner of the land and is also stated to be in possession of the property. The petitioner submits that the said land is reserved under Reservation Site No.4/3 for the purpose of extension of the primary school in the final development plan prepared for Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of MRTP Act. During the first round of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner states that, on 15th April, 2010, taking recourse to the provisions of section 17 of the Act of 1894 and by application of urgency clause, the possession of the land was taken over illegally by the acquisition authorities. The petitioner objected to the action of taking over illegal possession by the acquisition authorities and presented Writ Petition No.8313 of 2010 in this Court. The petition came to be decided finally on 5th December, 2011. The Division Bench of this Court while directing quashment of the action of taking over possession by application of urgency clause under section 17 of the Act of 1894, directed the respondents to return back possession of the land to the petitioner. The possession of land under acquisition came to be handed over back to the petitioner on 30th December, 2011.

4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award under section 11 of the Act of 1894, determining the amount of compensation at Rs.4,74,56,086/-. The amount of compensation has been determined under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “RFCTLAR & R Act”). According to the petitioner while computing the amount of compensation the acquisition authorities have taken into consideration the date 22.04.2010 i.e. date of issuance of notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 as the reference date for determination of the amount of compensation. In the instant proceedings, the date of issuance of notification under section 126(4) of MRTP Act read with section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is 22.04.2010.

5. According to the petitioner, the acquisition authorities have not considered the office memorandum dated 17th June, 2015 issued by Union of India. In view of memorandum referred above, the reference date for calculation of the amount of compensation shall be 1st January, 2014 i.e. date of enforcement of the provisions of the Act of 2013. According to the petitioner, in view of Rule 19(3) of the Rules framed under the Act of 2013, in case of acquisition of the land under MRTP Act for the public purpose, the determination of compensation shall be governed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top