Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye, JJ.
Maruti Genba Veer - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1082 of 2019
Decided On : 24-02-2023
LAND ACQUISITION - Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976; Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 - The court discussed the applicability of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly focusing on Sections 4, 11, and 48. The court interpreted the provisions regarding the determination of land holdings and the relevant slabs for compensation, concluding that the petitioners' land was improperly acquired as their holdings fell below the applicable slab. The court emphasized the importance of considering the actual land holdings at the time of notification and the distinction between different projects under the Land Acquisition Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the acquisition of their land at Village Dhangarwadi, arguing that their land holdings had been significantly reduced due to a prior acquisition for a different project, leaving them with insufficient land for livelihood. They contended that the acquisition was illegal as it violated the applicable provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' land was acquired without proper consideration of their reduced holdings, which fell below the applicable slab for acquisition under the relevant laws. The court noted that the earlier acquisition for a different project should have been taken into account, and the arguments presented by the state regarding the date of notification were flawed.
Issues: Whether the acquisition of the petitioners' land was valid under the applicable laws, considering their reduced land holdings due to a prior acquisition for a different project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' land could not be acquired under the law as their holdings were below the applicable slab at the time of the notification. The court emphasized that the earlier acquisition should have been considered, and the interpretation of the law by the state was incorrect.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned award regarding the petitioners' land and directed the concerned office to modify the revenue records accordingly. The petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
M.M.SATHAYE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable. Learned AGP waives service for Respondents / State. Taken up for final disposal by consent.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned Award dtd. 19/3/1996 bearing No.LAQ/19/SR/362 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer No.19, Satara in respect of the writ land, which is land Gat No.533 admeasuring 84 R, situated at Village Dhangarwadi, Taluka Khandala, District Satara. Initially the petition was filed praying to set aside impugned Order dtd. 10/8/2018 passed by learned Minister for Forest and Revenue, in Application No. LST/3517/INO.23/A-3, rejecting the same. The said order is passed confirming rejection of Petitioner's Application u/s. 48 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to remove the writ land from acquisition. However, subsequently by amending the petition, a prayer to set aside award has been added.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as below:
(ii) On 5/2/1986, a notification u/s. 11(1) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 came to be issued thereby applying provisions of said Act to Nira (Deoghar) flow-cum-Lift Irrigation Project and many villages including Petitioners' entire villages, both Shirwal and Dhangarwadi were notified as benefitted zone.
(iii) On 28/11/1989, Petitioners' lands at Village Shirwal were notified u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Krantisinh Nana Patil College of Veterinary Science at Shirwal and ultimately an Award came to be passed on 3/4/1991 acquiring the Petitioners lands at Village Shirwal. This award is hereinafter referred to as "the earlier Award of 1991" for short. This is neither in respect of Nira Deoghar Project nor in respect of Petitioners' land at Village Dhangarwadi.
(iv) On 23/6/1993, by a declaration u/s. 13(1) of the Maharshtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, 138 H and 88 R of Village Dhangarwadi was declared as benefitted zone for Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project affected persons.
(v) By Notification dtd. 30/3/1994, the Petitioners' land admeasuring 84 R situated at Village Dhangarwadi, came to be notified u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for resettlement of Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project affected persons.
(vi) Petitioners filed objection/representation dtd. 5/7/1994, informing the Land Acquisition officer that the earlier acquisition of 1991 has been done by the same office in respect of Petitioners' lands at Village Shirwal and requested not to acquire their land at Dhangarwadi also, since they will be left with very little land not sufficient for the livelihood of their big family.
(vii) By a report dtd. 28/4/1994 u/s. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 19, Satara rejected the Petitioners' prayer of excluding their land at Dhangarwadi on the ground that Petitioners' land holding is 4H, 48R which comes under applicable slab.
(viii) Impugned Award was passed on 19/3/1996 u/s. 11 of the Land Acqisition Act, 1894 and the Petitioners' writ land admeasuring 84R of Gat No. 533 at village Dhangarwadi was acquired.
4. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Kapse for the Petitioners and Ms. Bane, learned AGP for the Respondents. Perused the record.
5. Mr. Kapse took us through various documents annexed to the Petition explaining above dates and events. He submitted that it is the case of the Petitioners that as out of their total land holding admeasuring 4H, 48R, land at Village Shirwal admeasuring 2H, 38R was already acquired under the earlier Award of 1991 for some other project (Krantisinh Nana Patil C
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
Possession must remain with the landowner for an application under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to be maintainable; erroneous inclusion of mortgaged land invalidates acquisition.
The court established that land once acquired vests with the State, and claims of non-possession or non-payment do not negate the validity of the acquisition.
Compensation must be paid for un-acquired land vested in the Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and restoration of possession cannot be granted.
Once possession of the acquired land is taken, the government has no power to release the land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
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....
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....
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 ....
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
