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

2022 Supreme(Bom) 995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne, JJ.
Sakharbai w/o. Haribhau Shelke (Deceased) through LR’s - Sau. Sanjivani W/o. Dashrath Mahabare - Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai - Respondents
Civil Application No.4239 Of 2018 In Writ Petition No.1228 Of 2015
Decided On : 20-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants :Mr. Amol K. Gawali, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Smt. R.P. Gour, AGP, Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate.

The effect of interim orders on acquisition proceedings and the entitlement to compensation under the Act of 2013, as influenced by the interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) and the Faizabad Ayodhya Development Authority case.

Headnote:

Compensation - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(1)(a) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Act of 2013, Section 24(1)(a); Act of 1894, Section 4, Section 5-A, Section 6, Section 9, Section 11 - The court discussed the entitlement of the applicants to compensation under the Act of 2013, the reference date for calculation of market value, and the effect of Circular/Notification dated 26.10.2015. The court considered the legal provisions and their interpretations, including the implications of interim orders on the rights of landowners to receive compensation under the Act of 2013. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) and the effect of interim orders on the acquisition proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The land admeasuring 4-Hector, 59-Are from Survey No.148/1 was sought to be acquired for Shirdi Sansthan for construction of Dahrmashala. The acquisition proceedings were stalled due to an interim order passed in a writ petition, and the compensation was to be determined as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. The applicants sought redetermination of compensation based on the Circular/Notification dated 26.10.2015.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reference date of 01.01.2014 envisaged under the Circular/Notification dated 26.10.2015 cannot be taken into consideration for calculation of market value of acquired property under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 due to the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order.

Issues: Entitlement to compensation under the Act of 2013, effect of Circular/Notification dated 26.10.2015, and the implications of interim orders on the acquisition proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) and the effect of interim orders on the acquisition proceedings, as discussed in the Faizabad Ayodhya Development Authority case.

Final Decision: The Civil Application seeking redetermination of compensation was dismissed as the reference date of 01.01.2014 could not be considered due to the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order.

ORDER :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.) -

1. The issue involved in the present Civil Application is about entitlement of the applicants, who are the original petitioners, to get compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) by taking the reference date as 01.01.2014 in view of the directions issued by the Central Government vide Notification/Circular dated 26.10.2015.

2. Petitioner has filed the present Civil Application in a disposed of Writ Petition No.1228 of 2015. Therefore, it would be necessary to set out brief factual background under which the Civil Application has been filed.

3. The land admeasuring 4-Hector, 59-Are from Survey No.148/1 was sought to be acquired for Shirdi Sansthan (respondent no.4) for construction of Dahrmashala. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’) was published on 27.09.2000. Petitioners’ predecessor in title raised an objection to the acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, which was rejected. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 was published on 21.09.2001. The notification issued under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 were assailed in Writ Petition No.390 of 2002. By order dated 29.04.2002, the petition was admitted and the parties were directed to maintain status quo until further orders. It is undisputed position that on account of the status quo order passed on 29.04.2002, the acquisition proceedings could not be completed during pendency of the petition. By judgment and order dated 25.04.2014, this Court dismissed Writ Petition No.390 of 2002 in so far as the challenge to the notification issued under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was concerned. However, it was clarified that the compensation should be determined as per the provisions of the Act of 2013.

4. Thereafter Writ Petition No.1228 of 2015 came to be filed seeking directions to the respondents to invoke the provisions of the Act of 2013 for declaration of Award in respect of the land under acquisition. A direction was sought for issuance of fresh notification under Section 4 (2) and to decide the market value and to pay the compensation as provided under the Act of 2013. By order dated 09.02.2015, Writ Petition No.1228 of 2015 came to be rejected by this Court holding that this Court had already held in Writ Petition No.390 of 2002 that the proceedings till the stage of notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 were saved and only the compensation will have to be determined as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners for issuance of fresh notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act of 2013 was rejected.

5. Third Writ Petition No.1943 of 2016 was filed seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 2013. Said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 03.03.2016.

6. The petitioners challenged the judgments and orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.390 of 2002, 1228 of 2015 and 1943 of 2016 before the Supreme Court. When all three Special Leave Petitions were listed before the Supreme Court on 19.02.2018, the petitioners sought liberty to withdraw the SLPs for moving this Court by way of appropriate application(s) in the light of the Government Notification/Circular dated 26.10.2015. The Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to do so. This Court was directed to consider such application(s) filed by the petitioners on their own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the earlier judgments and having regard to the fact that the Government Notification/Circular date

                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