Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye, JJ.
Kiritkumar B. Shah - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.3932 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Rajendra V. Pai, Senior Advocate with Alaikik P. Pai, Mr.Akshay, R. Pai, Atharva Sane, Ms.Maanasi R. Gupta and Ms.Prajakta Shringarpure i/b Bina R. Pai
For the Respondent: Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with Mr.N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP, and Ms.K.N. Solunke, AGP, Mrs. Neeta V. Masurkar, Mr.Sandesh D. Patil with Mr.Ajinkya Jaibhave
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 300-A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 12(2), 18 – Reference to Court – Claiming Compensation – No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law – Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against Respondents directing them to duly consider, assess and grant compensation for land bearing Survey Village, Pen, District admeasuring about Ares acquired for benefit of the Respondent on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit – Held, Court that right to property is a human right and according to Article 300-A of Constitution of India, a person cannot be deprived of his property save by authority of law is not in dispute – Petitioner was paid compensation in year 1983 – If same was inadequate according to Petitioner, Petitioner could have exercised his rights and remedy available under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Petitioner not having exercised said rights for more than 36 years, cannot contend that this Court shall exercise its discretion under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Judgment in case thus would not advance case of Petitioner – A person who has not exercised his rights and remedies permissible in law diligently cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at cost and prejudice of others – Accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the Respondents directing them to duly consider, assess and grant compensation for the land bearing Survey No.53A/1/A/6, Pen Village, Taluka Pen, District Raigad admeasuring about 15.90 Ares acquired for the benefit of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit.
2. In the alternate prayer, the Petitioner seeks an order and direction against the Respondents to demolish all the structures and buildings standing on the writ property and thereafter hand over the quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of writ property on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit. The Petitioner also seeks an order and direction against the Respondents to duly assess and grant separate and/or additional compensation in the nature of compensation for delayed payment.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was the owner in respect of the writ property which has been purportedly acquired by the Respondents in the year 1983 for the benefits of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that when the writ property was acquired in the year 1983, the business of the said Authority was taken over at the instance of the Respondent No.5 for the purpose of two storied commercial office building-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). At the relevant time the said Authority paid over ad-hoc amount of Rs.5,000/-as and by way of compensation. According to the Petitioner, he accepted the ad-hoc amount of Rs.5,000/-under protest as it was too meager considering the real market value of the said property.
5. In paragraph 4(d), it is alleged by the Petitioner that the Petitioner diligently followed up with the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the said claim for compensation however, no payment of compensation was made.
6. On 8th January, 2019, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2003 of 2019 in this Court inter-alia praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner for compensation for acquisition of the writ property. The Writ Petition was listed before this Court on 10th April, 2019. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court dismissed the said writ petition having found it devoid of any substance. This Court observed that no steps had been taken by the Petitioner. There was no explanation of delay of more than 36 years in approaching this Court. This Court also recorded that the Petitioner attributed the delay to the Respondents and alleged non-availability of relevant record in the office of Land Acquisition Officer. This Court accordingly held that the grievance raised by the Petitioner of unexplained delay and latches of more than 36 years in approaching this Court need not be entertained in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The Petitioner did not challenge the said order dated 10th April, 2019 passed by this Court, dismissing the said writ petition but chose to file Review Petition in this Court bearing Review Petition No.10 of 2022. The Petitioner also filed this Petition inter-alia for a writ of mandamus against the Respondents to grant compensation in respect of the writ property. During the pendency of this Petition, on 21st February, 2022 the Petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the said Review Petition No.10 of 2022. This Court accordingly dismissed the said Review Petition as withdrawn and dismissed the Interim Application, as the same did not survive.
8. Mr.Pai, learned senior advocate for the Petitioner invited our attention to the correspondence exchanged between the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the office of the Collector and other Authorities forwarding the representation made by the Petitioner for payment of compensation and requesting to make
