The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceeding does not lapse under Sec. 24 of RFC & TLA & R, Act, 2013 if the compensation for the acquired land is already deposited and not claimed by the landowner.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. Khobragade, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of both sides, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions against the Respondents to pay compensation for his acquired land admeasuring 12 R from Gut No. 104 of village Vakti, Tq. Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short RFC & TLA & R, Act, 2013) within a period of two months from the date of order or in alternative, to deposit said compensation before this Court.

3. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvased that the petitioner’s father Shri Tukaram Sakharam Janrao was owner of agriculture land bearing Gat No. 104 admeasuring 12 R at village Vakti, Tq. Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad. In the year 1979, Respondent No. 4 acquiring body took possession of the land for construction of Nandur-Madhmeshwar Canal. On 31-01-1981, Respondent No. 3 Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in File No. 80/SLAO/JP/AR/39/79 and determined compensation to the tune of Rs.552/- (i.e. compensation @ Rs. 40 per R= 40 X 12 R= Rs.480/- + Solatium Rs.72=Rs.552/-) as per Schedule E to the Award. However, the petitioner or his predecessor in title, were neither paid compensation nor the same was deposited in the Court till date. So also, no notice was issued to the petitioner or his father at any time before. Therefore, on 21-05-2018, 12-01-2022 and 21-01-2022, the petitioner submitted representations with the Respondents authorities but no positive action was taken for payment of compensation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the mutation entry made in revenue record, the Respondent No. 4 acquired land of the petitioner for construction of canal in the year 1979, but till date no compensation has been paid either to the petitioner’s father or the petitioner, nor it has deposited in the Court in pursuance of award dated 31-01-1981 passed by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, said award as well as acquisition proceeding lapsed as per provisions Sec. 24 of RFC & TLA & R, Act, 2013 and only recourse available to the acquiring body to initiate fresh acquisition proceeding under the new RFC & TLA & R, Act, 2013. The Respondent Government can not acquire land of the petitioner without payment of compensation.

5. To buttress this submissions he relied on the case of Vinayak R. Gayake v. State of Maharashtra, 1988 MLR 1, wherein it has been held that, the State Government Cannot acquire any property without payment of compensation.

6. He further relied on the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & other, 2014 (3) SCC 183, wherein it has been held that, the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the RFC & TLA & R, Act, 2013. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the land owners/persons interested nor deposited in the Court. The deposit of compensation amount in the Government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. Therefore, the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the RFC& TLA & R. Act, 2013.

7. The learned counsel Counsel for the petitioner further relied on order dated 14th March 2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 557 of 2019, Ashok Anna Salunke and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Coram: Nitin W. Sambre & S.G. Chapalgokar, JJ.), wherein it has been observed that, possession of Petitioners land was taken on 01-10-2004 as against the award dated 20-09-2012 but no compensation was paid till then. Therefore consi