Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
Vijay S/o Pesumal Menghani & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2012 of 2021 With Writ Petition No.142, 730 of 2020 With Writ Petition No.7703, 7872 of 2019
Decided on : 08-07-2022
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Sunil B. Shukre, addressed several petitions challenging the legality and correctness of impugned declarations issued under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and impugned awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LA Act). The petitioners, claiming to be tenants of shop blocks on acquired land, asserted their rights and questioned the acquisition process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be tenants of shop blocks on acquired land, challenged the impugned declarations issued under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act and impugned awards passed by the LAO under the LA Act. They contended that the declarations were illegal as they did not include the declaration of an area identified as the “resettlement area” for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, as required by Section 19 of the LA Act. They also argued that the LAO failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of the LA Act regarding the publication of a public notice and the service of individual notices upon the petitioners, as required by Section 22 of the LA Act. Furthermore, the petitioners claimed that the impugned award was not binding upon them and that they could not be dispossessed from their respective shop blocks without following due procedure of law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned declarations were not illegal as they did not need to include the declaration of an area identified as the “resettlement area” for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, as the petitioners, being tenants, did not fall within the definition of “affected family” under Section 3(c) of the LA Act. The Court also found that the LAO had substantially complied with the requirements of Section 21 of the LA Act regarding the publication of a public notice and that the non-compliance with Section 22 of the LA Act regarding the service of individual notices upon the petitioners was not mandatory and did not render the impugned declarations and award illegal. The Court further held that the petitioners could be dispossessed from their respective shop blocks after ensuring full payment of compensation in terms of Section 38 of the LA Act and that the impugned award was binding upon them.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned declarations were illegal for not including the declaration of an area identified as the “resettlement area” for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, as required by Section 19 of the LA Act. 2. Whether the LAO failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of the LA Act regarding the publication of a public notice and the service of individual notices upon the petitioners, as required by Section 22 of the LA Act. 3. Whether the impugned award was not binding upon the petitioners. 4. Whether the petitioners could be dispossessed from their respective shop blocks without following due procedure of law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of identification of resettlement area under Section 19(1) of the LA Act was not applicable to the impugned declarations, as the petitioners, being tenants, did not fall within the definition of “affected family” under Section 3(c) of the LA Act. 2. The LAO had substantially complied with the requirements of Section 21 of the LA Act regarding the publication of a public notice and the non-compliance with Section 22 of the LA Act regarding the service of individual notices upon the petitioners was not mandatory and did not render the impugned declarations and award illegal. 3. The impugned award was binding upon the petitioners. 4. The petitioners could be dispossessed from their respective shop blocks after ensuring full payment of compensation in terms of Section 38 of the LA Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the petitions, holding that the impugned declarations and award were not illegal and that the petitioners could be dispossessed from their respective shop blocks after ensuring full payment of compensation in terms of Section 38 of the LA Act. The Court, however, partially granted the petitioners' request for continuation of the interim relief(s) granted in all the petitions for a further period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.
1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. All these petitions raise common questions of fact and law and, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment. However, in order to understand the facts pleaded and the prayers made in each of the petitions, it is necessary that their summary is made. Their summary is given in the ensuing paragraphs.
Writ Petition No.2012 of 2021 :
3. This petition is filed by seven petitioners. They claim to be the tenants of one shop block each on Kelibag Road, Mahal, Nagpur. The details of their tenancy are mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the petition. These petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned declaration dated 16-10-2020 issued by the respondent No.2- Collector, Nagpur, under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “the MRTP Act”) read with Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the LA Act of 2013) and, therefore, they seek its quashing, as being violative of the provisions of the LA Act of 2013. By this declaration, the respondent No.2- Collector, Nagpur, declared that the land abutting Central Avenue Road from Badkas Square-Kotwali Police Station Square to C.P. & Berar College Road (for short, “the Kelibag Road land”) was needed for the public purpose of road widening. The petitioners have also sought a declaration that the impugned award dated 9-2-2021 passed by the respondent- Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer (City), Nagpur, in Land Acquisition Case No.4/A/65/2020-21 is neither binding upon them nor can they be dispossessed from their respective shop blocks pursuant to the impugned award. The petitioners have sought further reliefs such as to declare that the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioners from their respective shop blocks and to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from their respective shop blocks without following due procedure of law, as provided under the LA Act of 2013.
4. The petitioners submit that they learnt about passing of the impugned award for the first time on 19-2-2021 and after obtaining the certified copy of the award, they came to know about the publication of the impugned declaration by the respondent No.2 only on 17-10-2020. They further submit that the impugned declaration issued under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act, though purported to be issued in the manner provided under Section 19 of the LA Act of 2013, which in fact is deemed to be a declaration duly made under Section 19 of the LA Act of 2013, as provided under Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act, does not meet the requirements of Section 19 of the LA Act of 2013, in the sense that it does not identify what is called as the “resettlement area” for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families. It is also the case of the petitioners that even though the respondent No.3 was well aware of the occupancy of the shop blocks by the petitioners as tenants, neither the notice under Section 21(4) of the LA Act of 2013 has been served upon the petitioners nor the landlords were called upon by the respondent- Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer (City), Nagpur, to submit a statement containing the name of every other person possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof, amongst others, under Section 22 of the LA Act of 2013. For these reasons, the petitioners submit that the impugned declaration is unsustainable and the impugned award is a nullity.
5. The petitioners also submit that the impugned award does not determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners and they being the tenants, are the persons having interest in the land under acquisition in terms of Section 3(x) of the LA Act of 2013 and, therefore, the impugned award violates Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of Ind
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
