Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, GAURI GODSE, JJ.
Ashok Hari Shitlani - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12354 Of 2017
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Land Acquisition - Lapsed Proceedings - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 11, 11A - Fair Compensation Act - Consent Award - Natural Justice
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the Consent Award dated 4 July, 2017 and for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the writ property have lapsed. The Petitioner claimed to have acquired all rights, title, and interest in the property through a registered Agreement to Sale and a Sale Deed executed by the original owner. The Respondent No.1 issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding intention to acquire the lands, and subsequently, a Declaration under Section 6 was issued. The Deputy Collector passed a consent award in the name of the original owner, despite the Petitioner's objections and without considering the Sale Deed executed in the Petitioner's favor.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed as no award was made within the prescribed time under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The consent award made in the name of the deceased original owner was held to be in violation of natural justice and the principles of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court also noted that the Petitioner had locus to file the petition and that the Sale Deed executed in the Petitioner's favor prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act distinguished the case from precedents.
Issues: The issues before the Court included the validity of the Consent Award, the lapsed land acquisition proceedings, the rights of the Petitioner as the transferee of the property, and the application of natural justice principles in the land acquisition process.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed, rendering the consent award invalid. It also emphasized the Petitioner's locus to file the petition and the significance of the Sale Deed executed prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court's decision was influenced by the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute, quashing the Consent Award and declaring the land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed.
JUDGMENT :
(R.D. Dhanuka, J.)
1. Rule. Mr.Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader waives service for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Kharawala waives service for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8. Dr.Warunjikar, waives service for the Respondent Nos.9 and 10. Mr.Kulkarni waives service for CIDCO - Respondent No.11. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting the Consent Award dated 4 July, 2017 and for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the writ property bearing Survey No.395, Hissa No.O at Village Vahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad admeasuring 01 H 75R (17500 sq. mtrs.) have lapsed.
3. The Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28 August, 2015 passed by the Respondent No.2 and further seeks a writ of mandamus against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pass an order under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the name of the Petitioner in respect of the agricultural land i.e. land bearing Survey No.395, Hissa No.O at Village Vahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad admeasuring 01 H-75R-OP (17500 sq. mtrs.).
Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under :-
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that prior to 16 June, 2006, the Respondent No.1 was the owner of the writ property. On 16 June, 2006, the original Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to 7 being consenting party executed a registered Agreement to Sale in respect of the writ property in favour of the Petitioner thereby conferring all rights, title and interest in respect of the writ property in favour of the Petitioner.
5. On 24 December, 2012, the original Respondent No.4 through his power of attorney holder made an application dated 12 April, 2012 to the learned Additional Collector of Raigad at Alibag for sale of the said property. It is the case of the Petitioner that the learned Additional Collector after considering the said application, opinions of the learned Tahsildar of Panvel and CIDCO, passed an order thereby granting permission for sale of the said property under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Rules made there under.
6. On 13 February, 2013, the Respondent No.4 through his power of attorney holder executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner thereby conferring all rights, title and interest in respect of the said property in favour of the Petitioner.
7. On 7 December, 2013, the Respondent No.1 issued a Notification which was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 16 December, 2013 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding intention to acquire the lands at Village Vahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad for Navi Mumbai Project and included the writ property in the said Notification.
8. On 1 July, 2014, the Petitioner made an application to the Respondent No.3 and informed the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the Petitioner had purchased the writ property and therefore, and that the Respondents should make all correspondence in respect of the acquisition of the said property with the Petitioner only.
9. On 4 August, 2014, the Petitioner made an application to the Respondent No.3 and informed the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the Petitioner had purchased the writ property and therefore, should make all correspondence in respect of the acquisition of the writ property with the Petitioner only. On 5 August, 2014, the Respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the Petitioner assuring about conducting an enquiry about the grievances of the Petitioner and that the decision of the said enquiry will be communicated to the Petitioner.
10. On 20 May, 2015, the Respondent No.1 decided to acquire the writ property and issued a Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisitio
The main legal point established in the judgment is that land acquisition proceedings can lapse if no award is made within the prescribed time under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, and that ....
Section 11A of Act, Collector has to make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from date of publication of declaration and if no award is made within that period, entire proceedings....
Subsequent purchasers of land cannot challenge acquisition proceedings if the purchase occurred after the Notification under Section 4, as such sales are void against the State.
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....
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
