Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P. COLABAWALLA, SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
Vilas Damu Shinde and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8115 Of 2014
Decided On : 02-01-2024
Land Acquisition Act - Notice - Section 4, Section 5A, Section 9, Section 11, Section 12(2), Section 16, Section 18, Section 24(2), Section 31, Section 34 - The court considered whether the Petitioners were given due notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of a piece of land co-owned by them when it was acquired in 1989. The court found that the Petitioners had notice of the acquisition process and were aware of their ownership interest in the land, and therefore, the acquisition was not vitiated by the lack of notice. The court directed the State to calculate and pay interest on the compensation applicable to the land in compliance with Section 34 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their co-owned land, claiming they had not been given due notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They argued that the acquisition was vitiated because of the lack of notice, while the State contended that the Petitioners had notice of the acquisition process and were aware of their ownership interest in the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioners had notice of the acquisition process and were aware of their ownership interest in the land, and therefore, the acquisition was not vitiated by the lack of notice. The court directed the State to calculate and pay interest on the compensation applicable to the land in compliance with Section 34 of the Act.
Issues: The core issue was whether the Petitioners had been given due notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of their co-owned land when it was acquired in 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioners had notice of the acquisition process and were aware of their ownership interest in the land, and therefore, the acquisition was not vitiated by the lack of notice. The court also directed the State to calculate and pay interest on the compensation applicable to the land in compliance with Section 34 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the State to calculate and pay interest on the compensation applicable to the land in compliance with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court also placed the case on Board for reporting compliance on a specified date.
JUDGMENT :
(Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.)
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The core issue that falls for consideration in the captioned Writ Petition is whether the Petitioners had been given due notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act”) in respect of a piece of land co-owned by them when it was acquired in 1989 in connection with the Kasarsai Irrigation Project.
3. The land in question is situated at Survey No. 19/2 [admeasuring 2 Hectares and 63 Are] at Village Nere, Taluka Maval, District Pune, out of which, land admeasuring 1 Hectare and 60 Are was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act [for short the “ 19/2 Land”]. The Petitioners were also owners of other parcels of land being Gat No. 26A, Gat No. 26B and Gat No.26C [admeasuring 3 Hectares and 20 Are] [collectively, referred to as the “26ABC Land”]. The acquisition in question, right from the Section 4 notification to the Award passed in the matter, covered both, the 19/2 Land and the 26ABC Land.
4. According to the Petitioners, they had no notice of the proposed acquisition in terms of Section 4(1). As a result, they would contend, they had no opportunity of raising objections under Section 5A, being unaware that their land was being acquired. Consequently, they contend, the acquisition is vitiated because due process under law is not complied with. For the reasons articulated below, and after giving our anxious consideration to the material on record, we are unable to agree with the Petitioners.
ARRAY OF PARTIES
5. The Petitioners, namely, Mr. Vilas Damu Shinde-Petitioner No.1, Mr. Dattu Bhau Shinde-Petitioner No. 2 and Mr. Maruti Vitthal Shinde-Petitioner No. 3 are all residents of Village Nere. The Petitioners had purchased the 19/2 Land from Respondent No. 5 viz. Mr. Damu Bapu Jadhav vide a registered deed dated July 26, 1979.
6. Respondent No. 1 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer; Respondent No. 2 is the District Resettlement Officer, Pune; Respondent No. 3 is the Divisional Commissioner, Revenue, Pune; and Respondent No. 4 is the State of Maharashtra.
7. In the course of the proceedings, Respondent No 5 passed away and has since been replaced by his heirs and legal representatives.
8. Respondent No.6 viz. Mr. Soma Jaywant Yewale is a project affected person to whom the 19/2 Land is said to have been allotted. Since Respondent No 6 had passed away at the time of filing of the above Writ Petition [in 2014], his heirs and legal representatives were also made Respondent Nos.6A to 6E [collectively, “ Respondent No 6”].
9. Meanwhile, the land in question (19/2 Land) is purported to have been sold by the various legal representatives of Mr. Yewale to Respondents No. 7 to 9 vide a registered sale deed dated July 5, 2013. These Respondents, in turn, purport to have developed the land so acquired, and purport to have sold sub-plots to multiple other parties between 2013 and 2016, with consequential mutation entries being made.
FACTUAL MATRIX
10. On February 6, 1981, the Kasarsai Irrigation Project was declared a public purpose project for which land was to be acquired. By this date, the Petitioners’ names had not been entered as the owners in the State’s land and revenue records. Therefore, on December 1, 1986, the Petitioners applied to the Collector, Pune and to Respondent No. 2, viz. the District Resettlement Officer, Pune to record the sale deed dated July 26, 1979, looking to the fact that the sale deed had been executed well prior to February 6, 1981. The Petitioners were directed by these authorities to approach the village Talathi, which led to an application being made on December 2, 1986, who on the same date, by Mutation Entry No. 1602, recorded the names of the Petitioners as the owners of the 19/2 Land.
11. Thereafter, in relation to the 19/2 Land as well as the 26ABC Land, a notification under Section 4 was published on October 12, 1989. A declarat
Public notice under the Land Acquisition Act suffices for informing interested parties; individual notice is not required, and excessive delay in challenging acquisition proceedings can bar claims.
Acquisition of land under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ground of urgency - Requirement of Section 5A
The limitation period for filing a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act begins when the landowner has actual knowledge of the award's contents, not merely from the award's passing date.
The limitation period for filing a reference petition under the Land Acquisition Act begins from the date of knowledge of the award's contents, and the burden of proving notice issuance lies with the....
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
