Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
NITIN W. SAMBRE, S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
Ashok Shahadeo Bhokare – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4032 of 2021, Civil Application Nos. 11152, 14017 of 2021
Decided On : 30-06-2023
Compensation - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - [Section 340 of CrPC] - Serious fraud on public funds attempted by the petitioners in connivance with certain Public Officers - Writ petition dismissed with total cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be borne by each of the petitioner in equal proportion - District Collector directed to lodge FIR/police report against the petitioners, erring officers and other culprits responsible for manipulation/fabrication of documents relied for raising/prosecuting false claim for compensation - Registrar [Judicial] directed to file complaint with Jurisdictional Magistrate against petitioners for offences committed on record of this Court - Notice issued under Section 340 of CrPC against Advocate Mr. V.P. Latange stands recalled - Pending civil applications disposed of
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought directions against the respondents to disburse compensation to them in pursuance of a land acquisition award. The respondents had deposited the award amount with the Registry of the Court, and the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the amount. However, serious doubts were raised regarding the genuineness of the award and other documents relied upon by the petitioners. The petitioners denied their signatures and thumb marks on the Vakalatnama and claimed they had never instructed the Advocate to file the petition or its withdrawal. The Court found that the petitioners attempted to lay false and fraudulent claims based on forged and manipulated documents, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with costs and directions for lodging FIR/police report against the petitioners and erring officers, and for filing a complaint with the Jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioners for offences committed on record of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners attempted to lay false and fraudulent claims based on forged and manipulated documents, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with costs and directions for lodging FIR/police report against the petitioners and erring officers, and for filing a complaint with the Jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioners for offences committed on record of the Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the genuineness of the land acquisition award and other documents relied upon by the petitioners, the denial of signatures and thumb marks by the petitioners, and the attempt to lay false and fraudulent claims based on forged and manipulated documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the finding that the petitioners attempted to lay false and fraudulent claims based on forged and manipulated documents, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with costs and directions for lodging FIR/police report against the petitioners and erring officers, and for filing a complaint with the Jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioners for offences committed on record of the Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with total cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be borne by each of the petitioner in equal proportion, else to be recovered as areas of land revenue. The District Collector was directed to lodge FIR/police report against the petitioners, erring officers and other culprits responsible for manipulation/fabrication of documents relied for raising/prosecuting false claim for compensation. The Registrar [Judicial] of the Court was directed to file a complaint with the Jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioners for offences committed on record of the Court. The notice issued under Section 340 of CrPC against Advocate Mr. V.P. Latange was recalled, and pending civil applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions against the respondents to disburse the amount of compensation to them, in pursuance of land Acquisition award dated 09/09/2019 passed in file No. 2019/LNQ/SR/134/97 by Respondent No. 4 under provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’ for short].
2. The petitioners contend that, they are agriculturists having lands in Gat Nos.3, 28, 43, 45, 46, 48 & 104 at village Arvi, Taluka Shirur (Ka), District Beed. On 08/06/1996 by way of a private negotiation, the portion of the aforesaid lands has been acquired by respondents for Uttala Budruk Minor Irrigation (Right) Canal without passing of award and release of compensation. After petitioners constant persuasion, respondent no. 4/Land Acquisition Officer, Beed passed award dated 09/09/2019. The compensation to the tune of Rs.2,03,34,665/- has been assessed as indicated in the E-statement. On the same day, respondent no. 4 instructed respondent no. 6/Executive Engineer, Beed Irrigation Division, to raise the demand of amount as per the award with respondent No. 1/State of Maharashtra and disburse compensation to the petitioners directly through R.T.G.S. According to the petitioners, respondent no. 6 had forwarded a proposal to respondent no. 1 for release of the amount as per the award then funds are made available. However, respondent no. 6 withheld the amount without assigning any reason. The petitioners addressed representation dated 04/02/2020 to the respondents seeking release of compensation, however, no amount is disbursed in pursuance of the award.
3. Pertinently, the petitioners have placed on record a copy of Land acquisition award dated 09/09/2019 along with a approval by respondent no. 3/Dist. Collector. The petitioners have also placed on record the copies of communications dated 30/11/2019 and 19/12/2019 exchanged between respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 6 for release of compensation amount in their favor of as per E-Statement. The petitioners have further placed on record a copy of representation dated 04/02/2020 addressed to respondent authorities seeking disbursement of the compensation amount in terms of the award dated 09/09/2019. All the petitioners seems to have signed on said representation. One more communication dated 01/02/2021 is placed on record of this Court, purportedly addressed by respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 6, instructing him to release amount as per award.
4. The writ petition was placed for admission before this Court on 03/03/2021. After hearing the learned Advocate Mr. V.P. Latange appearing for the petitioners, notice was issued to the respondents. Thereafter, writ petition was heard on 29/10/2021 along with Civil Application No. 11152/2021 filed by the petitioners seeking directions against the respondents to deposit the amount as per the award. This Court, noted that, learned Advocate Mr. S. G. Bhalerao appearing for respondent nos.4 & 6, on instructions, does not dispute that the amount is required to be paid to the petitioners. Accordingly, respondent/authorities were permitted to deposit the amount as per the award in this Court.
5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, on 24/11/2021 respondent No. 6 deposited award amount with the Registry of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners moved another Civil Application No. 14017/2021 seeking permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondents. The contents of the said civil application are verified by petitioner no. 8 - Vilas Dinkar Bhosale and he has been identified by the learned Advocate Mr. Latange and his thumb impression has been duly attested before the Section Officer of this Court.
6. On 07/01/2022, Mr. Chetan
The land acquisition process is valid despite claims of forgery in records without prior objections raised during the process.
The Land Acquisition Officer has authority to decide simple title issues but must refer complicated matters to the Civil Court, ensuring fair consideration of all claims.
Point of Law : It is well settled that if a person has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Authority, he cannot challenge proceedings, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of said authority in furt....
Compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, including the deposit of compensation and evidence of physical possession, is crucial for the validity of acquisition proceedings.
The award under Section 23-A of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 is not final and binding if all 'persons interested' did not appear before the Competent Authority and agree in writing on the matters ....
Point of Law : Respondents, therefore, cannot retain the amounts received by them. Instead, they will have to deposit these amounts before the Reference Court.
A party cannot challenge a consent award after accepting its benefits, as established by the principle of approbate and reprobate.
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
