The importance of consideration in a contract and the determination of compensation under the Act of 2013 for the acquisition of land for a public project.

JUDGMENT

Y. G. Khobragade, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying quashing of award No.2018/SDO/LNQ/SR-13/2006, dated 13.08.2019 passed by respondent No.4 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, whereby it has decided to go for execution of sale-deeds through private negotiations in respect of acquired land bearing Gut No.116 admeasuring 4 Hectare 75 Are along with structure and fruit bearing trees for construction of percolation tank No.8, Asardoha, Taluka Dharur, District Beed. The petitioners further pray to quash and set aside proposals dated 14.06.2016 and 31.08.2016 under which direct sale-deed through private negotiations was directed and consent agreement dated 15.02.2019 was executed. They have further prayed for issuance of directions against the respondents to initiate acquisition proceeding as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013').

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of land Gut No.116 admeasuring 4 Hectare 75 Are, situated at Asardoha, Taluka Dharur, District Beed and the respondent No.5 acquired said land and taken possession in the year 2004-2005 itself under notification dated 1. 03.2004 but it was lapsed. Therefore, again on 01.03.2008 the respondents initiated fresh land acquisition proceeding and the respondent No.4 called for joint measurement vide communication dated 18.05.2012. Accordingly, the joint measurement of petitioners land was conducted and during inspection 90 fruit bearing trees of custard apple (Sitaphal) and 14 stone bands were found and joint measurement report was submitted. However, again on 13.04.2016, the respondent No.5 visited the spot and prepared spot inspection panchanama, but did not proceed further.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.5 could have submitted proposal of land acquisition as per new enactment i.e. the Act of 2013 which came in force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, but no such proceeding was initiated and submitted proposal for direct purchase method through private negotiation, on 14.06.2016. The proposal through private negotiation was refused by respondent No.4, but again on 31.08.2018, the respondent No.5 submitted proposal for consent award through direct sale-deed by private negotiation which is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 12.05.2015 issued by the State Government, whereby guidelines have been framed for direct purchase through private negotiation.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the new enactment of 2013, the Collector submitted proposal for fixation of rates of acquired land with Town Planning Authority and rates of acquired land @ Rs.8,224/- per Are fixed but the Sub-Divisional Officer declared the draft consent award. However, respondent No.4, without any legal base, reduced rates of compensation from Rs.8224/- per Are to Rs.5,412/- per Are, though it was the statutory duty of respondent No.4 to consider rates fixed by the District Level committee which requires multiplication and could have applied multiplier as per the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013. However, the respondent No.4 arbitrarily reduced fixed rates of acquired land and declared the consent award and directed execution of sale-deed/consent letter dated 15.02.2019 through private negotiation in favour of respondent No.5, but, again on 20.06.2019, the respondent No.5 was directed to draw panchanama. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.5 drew panchanama on