Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard with consent of the learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. Petitioner-Shivaji Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for short ‘the petitioner-Society’) claims to have purchased Field Survey No. 112/6, Patwari Halka No. 17, admeasuring 89 Are of Mouza Chikhli Deosthan, District Nagpur as can be demonstrated from Annexure-1. After notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894) issued in relation to acquisition of the said land for public purpose, an award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on August 25, 1994.

3. The challenge in the petition is to the notification under Section 4 issued on May 04, 1989, declaration under Section 6 and also to the award not being passed within the prescribed period of two years under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’). It is further prayed by the petitioner-Society that directions be issued to the respondent no. 3 to remove the boundary wall over Field Khasra No. 112/6 and to restore the possession to its members or in the alternative compensation be ordered as per provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

4. Shri N.H. Shams, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of aforesaid prayers would urge that after the lands were purchased by the petitioner-Society, same were converted to non-agricultural use and after the plots were laid, same were transferred in the name of the members of the petitioner-Society who in the interest of rights of its members has approached this Court. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the acquisition of lands for public purpose is not established as except erecting a boundary wall, the lands are not put to any use. Inspite of there being an award in relation to the lands in question, the amount of compensation is not deposited in the account of the plot holders of the petitioner-Society. According to him, since the award was not passed within the time stipulated as prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act of 2013, the award is unsustainable. He would claim that the award under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 has to be passed within two years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. In addition, the counsel for the petitioner would urge that since the compensation was not paid, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would be attracted and as such by declaring that the earlier acquisition has lapsed, the respondents should be directed to take recourse to fresh acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.

5. While countering the aforesaid submissions, Shri H.R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 so also Shri Vandan Gadkari, counsel for the respondent no. 4-APMC would urge that the petition not only suffers from inordinate delay and laches but also same involves various disputed questions of fact. It is also claimed that in the backdrop of submissions of the petitioner, it has to be inferred that the petitioner lacks locus to question the acquisition. Further submission is, the acquisition proceedings have already attained finality as the petitioner has chosen to take recourse to reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In this background, it is claimed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have appreciated the rival claims.

7. It is the case of the petitioner-Society that vide sale-deed dated January 03, 1986 the land in question was purchased by it and vide order of the Tahsildar dated January 30, 1993, the same was put to nonagricultural use. According to the petitioner-Society, a layout was carved out and plots were sold in between 1986 to 1990. It is claimed that the names of the plot