Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
Arvind Narayan Golande - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6172 Of 2012 With Writ Petition No. 6175 Of 2012 With Writ Petition No. 6188 Of 2012 With Writ Petition No. 7576 Of 2012 With Writ Petition No. 8992 Of 2012 With Writ Petition No. 8974 Of 2012
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Writ Petitions - [Land Acquisition] - [Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 48] - The court discussed the acquisition of subject lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act. It highlighted the distinction between acquisition and requisition of property, the process of possession transfer, and the vesting of land in the government. The court found that the acquisition proceedings were completed, and the lands vested in the government, dismissing the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners sought direction to withdraw their lands from acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and put them in possession. They argued that the possession of their lands was continued under the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act. The Petitioners also alleged breach of conditions and illegal allotments by the Respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings were completed, and the lands vested in the government. It noted the belated nature of the Petitioners' objections and lack of action prior to issuing notices in 2012. The court held that the Petitioners' broad-based prayers lacked merit and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: The issues involved the distinction between acquisition and requisition of property, the transfer of possession, the lapse of acquisition proceedings, and the delay/laches on the part of the Petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once the award is passed, the land vests free from all encumbrances in the government. It also highlighted the lack of action by the Petitioners prior to 2012 and the effect of absence of order under Section 9(3) of the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the petitions, finding that it was not a fit case to grant any relief and discharged the rule with no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
(M.M. Sathaye, J.)
1. Rule. Ld. AGPs waive service in all the Writ Petitions. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with consent. By this group of 6 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are praying for direction to the Respondents to consider notices issued by Petitioners and withdraw their subject matter lands from acquisition u/s. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the said Act” for short) and put Petitioners in possession thereof. The Petitioners are also praying in the alternative for return of subject matter lands to them by accepting consideration from the Petitioners at the current Government rate or consideration as may be fixed by the Court and take all steps including executions of documents so as to transfer full and complete title of the subject lands in favour of the Petitioners and to put them in physical and peaceful possession thereof. The Petitioners are also praying in the alternative for appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondents to sell the subject matter lands by public auction and permit the Petitioners to take part in the said public auction. All the petitions stand on similar factual footing and common questions are involved for decision. In that view of the matter, these petitions are being heard together and disposed of by a common order.
SUBMISSIONS AND CASE
2. Learned Counsel Mr. Hushing has made his submissions in Writ Petition No. 6172 of 2012, Writ Petition No. 6188 of 2012, Writ Petition No. 7576 of 2012 and Mr. Bhoite has made submissions in support of Writ Petition No. 8992 of 2012, Writ Petition No. 8974 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 6175 of 2012. They have assisted the Court with following charts showing details of subject matter lands/ properties involved in the Petition.
Civil W.P. No. Property Description Date of Award Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Date of Order Under Sec.7 of Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948
7576/2012 Survey No. 121/3 (New) i.e. 198A/3(Old) Admeasuring 00 H 27R, Situated at Daund, Tal. Daund Dist. Pune. 23/09/1986 06/04/1951
6172/2012 Survey No. 196/1, Admeasuring 01 H 20R, Daund, Tal. Daund Dist. Pune 15/07/1982 06/04/1951
6188/2012 Survey No. 99/1/A (New) i.e. 201/1/A (Old), Admeasuring 00H 41R, Situated at Daund, Tal. Daund Dist. Pune. 23/09/1986 06/04/1951
Civil W.P. No. Property Description Date of Award Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Date of Order Under Sec.7 of Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948
8992/2012 Survey No. 197-4A/3, admeasuring H 00 Ares 7.5, Situated at Daund, Tal. Daund Dist. Pune. 1986 06/04/1951
8974/2012 Survey No. 197-4A/3, admeasuring H 00 Ares 7.5, Situated at Daund, Tal. Daund Dist. Pune. 1986 06/04/1951
6175/2012 Survey No. 99/1 (New) & 201/1/1 (old), admeasuring H 00 Ares 41, Situated at Daund, Tal. Daund Dist. Pune. 1986 06/04/1951
3. Mr. Bhoite has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of H.D. Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Reported in (1984) 2 SCC 337, specially the portion of para 6 in which distinction between the concept of acquisition or requisition of property is explained.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the subject matter lands were requisitioned under the old Defence of India Act some time in 1941 as part of big chuck of lands at Village Daund, Dist. Pune. These lands then continued to remain under requisition even post independence under provisions of Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 and were transferred to Police authority (presently SRPF). It is submitted that during the period from 1982 to 1986, notifications were issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and awards were passed.
5. It is submitted that this group of petitions were decided earlier by this Court under Order dated 30th November 2015, which was carried to the Supreme Court by Respondents, where the said order was set aside and the matters were remanded back for fresh consideration. He submitted that even toda
Requisition must be temporary; indefinite requisition for over 25 years violates property rights and is a misuse of power, necessitating prompt acquisition actions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
Requisition of land cannot exceed statutory limits and must be quashed if continued illegally; acquisition must follow due process.
Land Acquisition and Requisition - Once possession has been taken and land has not been utilised, there cannot be withdrawal from acquisition of any land. Land cannot be restituted to owner after sta....
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
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
