IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye, JJ.
Ashok - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 575 of 2022
Decided On : 31-01-2023
RENTAL COMPENSATION - LAND ACQUISITION - Article 226, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Right to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court analyzed the claims for rental compensation based on Government Resolutions and the Fair Compensation Act. It emphasized that the Petitioners had already negotiated compensation under the Fair Compensation Act, which superseded previous resolutions. The court concluded that the Petitioners could not claim rental compensation as they had accepted the negotiated amount as full and final, thus not reserving rights for additional claims.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for rental compensation after their lands were taken in 1992 without formal acquisition proceedings. They executed Sale Deeds in 2019 and 2020 but claimed rental compensation based on Government Resolutions from 1972, 1977, and 1988, which the Respondent No.5 refused to pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioners had executed Sale Deeds and indemnity bonds stating they would not claim further compensation. The court ruled that the claims for rental compensation were not maintainable as the compensation had already been settled under the Fair Compensation Act, which was applicable at the time of negotiations.
Issues: Whether the Petitioners were entitled to claim rental compensation after having negotiated and accepted compensation under the Fair Compensation Act, and whether the previous Government Resolutions could be invoked in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once compensation was agreed upon and accepted under the Fair Compensation Act, the Petitioners could not claim additional rental compensation based on earlier Government Resolutions. The provisions of the Fair Compensation Act were deemed to have replaced those of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition No.575 of 2022 was dismissed, and the rule was discharged without costs.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
R.D.DHANUKA, J. - Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Vilas B. Tapkir waives service for the Respondent No.5. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the Respondents to pay to the Petitioners the rental compensation at the rate of 8% p.a. on the amount of compensation awarded to them through private negotiations as shown in the Sale Deeds dated 30 th September, 2019 and 12/8/2020 along with 6% interest thereon. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under :
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners were the owners of the lands admeasuring 9 R bearing Gat No.426, 41 R bearing Gat No.456 and 66 R bearing Gat No.461 all situated at Village Chale, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur. The Respondent No.5 took possession of the writ lands in the month of January, 1992. No acquisition proceedings were commenced by the Respondents till private negotiations in respect of the writ lands took place between the parties in the year 2019.
4. In pursuance of the private negotiations, the Petitioners and the Respondent No.5 executed the Sale Deeds on 30 th September, 2019 and 16/9/2020 in respect of the writ property.
5. On 15/6/2020 and 27/8/2020, the Petitioners made the representations to the Respondent No.5 requesting to pay the rental compensation along with interest from the date of taking possession of the writ lands.
6. On 19/3/2020, 10/8/2020 and 27/10/2020, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Coordination, Solapur, the Assistant Superintending Engineer, Bhima Canal Circle, Solapur and the Collector, Solapur addressed the letters to the Executive Engineer, Ujani Canal Division No.1, Mangalwedha, Executive Director, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, Pune and the Superintending Engineer, Bhima Canal Circle, Solapur requesting them to pay rental compensation and the interest thereon in accordance with the law to the Petitioners.
7. It is the case of the Petitioners that despite such request made by various authorities to the Respondent No.5 to pay rental compensation in accordance with law to the Petitioners, the Respondent No.5 did not pay any such rental compensation with interest or otherwise to the Petitioners. It is the case of the Petitioners that refusal on the part of the Respondent No.5 to pay rental compensation to the Petitioners is contrary to the Government Resolutions dtd. 1/12/1972, 7/9/1977 and 24/3/1988 regarding providing for payment of rental compensation to the land owners whose lands were acquired by private negotiations for public purpose. The Petitioners thus filed this Writ Petition for various reliefs.
8. Ms.Talekar, learned counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the Government Resolutions dtd. 1/12/1972, 7/9/1977 and 24/3/1988 and submitted that the Respondent No.5 refused to pay rental compensation contrary to the directives issued by the Government of Maharashtra in those three Government Resolutions. She submitted that the possession of the lands was already taken by the Respondent No.5 as far back as in the year 1992. The decision to pay rental compensation in respect of the writ lands was taken in the meeting held by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition), Solapur on 8/7/2020, which meeting was attended by various officers of the Respondent No.1.
9. It is submitted that none of the Respondents took any steps to acquire the lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or The Right to Fair Compensation in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the said "Fair Compensation Act").
10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Sub- Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition) Coordination, Solapur also recommended to pay to the land owners rental com
Ichalkaranji Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
The acceptance of compensation under the Fair Compensation Act precludes claims for rental compensation based on earlier Government Resolutions, as the Fair Compensation Act provides a comprehensive ....
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.