Prompt determination and payment of compensation in land acquisition cases is essential to protect the rights of affected parties and ensure compliance with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. S.B. Kalel waives service for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 9. Learned counsel Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni waives service for respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith deposit the amount determined in respect of the land acquisition reference mentioned in chart at Exh. H which is settled in ‘Maha Lok Adalat’ dated 9.12.2017 with all statutory benefits and accrued interest till the date of actual disbursement of payment with immediate effect.

3. The petitioners also seek writ of mandamus to direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short) Metro Centre Panvel to dispose of the pending applications under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1898, which were directed to be disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 19.1.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 8450/2003 and judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 6659/2006. Some of the relevant facts for deciding the petition are as under :-

4. During the period between 1965 to 1970, the State Government took a decision to establish new town to reduce pressure on Mumbai by exercising powers under section 113-A of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’ for short) and notified lands situated at 96 villages under section 113-CD as a site for New Bombay. The State Government thereafter exercised powers under section 113-A of the Act and commenced acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State Government issued various notifications in respect of those lands situated in 96 villages for New Bombay Project in the month of February 1976.

5. The petitioners are the agriculturists from generations to generations. The lands of the petitioners situated in village Roadpali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad-Alibaug were initially notified for acquisition for new Bombay Project by the State Government with notification dated 3rd February 1970.

6. It is the case of petitioners that the petitioners could not prefer the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and submitted in all 376 reference applications under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

7. It is the case of petitioners that this Hon’ble Court determined the market rate at the rate of Rs.25/- per Sq. Mtrs. in respect of the lands situated in village Roadpali acquired in 1970. The State Government has acquiesced this rate. Around 22.11.2002 the petitioners submitted an applications to the SLAO Metro Centre No. 1 Panvel stating that the market rates determined by this Court at the rate of Rs.25/- per Sq. Mtrs. in respect of the lands situated at village Roadpali has attained the finality.

8. On 19th January 2004 a Division Bench of this Court directed the authority to dispose of the reference under section 28-A preferred by the petitioners preferably within six months. The respondents, however, did not comply with the said order. The petitioners therefore preferred Contempt Petition No.156/2005 in this Court. On 15th July 2005 this Court disposed of the said contempt petition by observing that there was no case of contempt made out though there is delay in disposing of the applications under section 28-A of the Act.

9. On 21st September 2006 the petitioners preferred writ petition in this Court bearing No. 6650/2006 inter-alia praying for directions to the respondents to hear the petitioners and decide the said applications under section 28-A and to pay compensation under time bound programme. On 9th October 2006 a Division Bench of this Court directed respondent No. 4 to decide the said applications under section 28-A within a period of three months and if applications are allowed, to disburse the compensation within a period of one month thereafter to the petitioners. The said order w