Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
R.D. Dhanuka and M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.
Pandurang Pandit Borhade and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Dr. Rajesh B. Deshmukh and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.4172 of 2016 along with Writ Petition No.9423 of 2018
Decided on 1.8.2022
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Drawing of Panchanama of taking possession is mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases – Land vests in Government and any re-entry is unlawful – Petitioner did not raise any objection under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act nor did he raise any objection on publication of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – He did not even apply for apportionment of compensation – It does not lie in his mouth to say that Revenue Authorities did not carry out mutation entry on the basis of consent decree – This conduct of prolonged silence on part of Petitioner disentitles him to claim any relief – Petitioner was aware that Revenue Authorities had refused to act upon consent decree and that his name has not been recorded in revenue record and land remained in name of brother of Petitioner – It was obligatory for him to take objection before SLAO which he did not – Petitioner cannot be heard to say that he had no notice of acquisition of his land – Petition dismissed. (Paras 45, 48, 51, 54 and 60)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
M.G. Sewlikar, J.—The petitioners in Contempt Petition No.7 of 2022 have prayed for an action of contempt against the respondent nos.2 and 3 alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 6th January 2020 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No.3176 of 2019.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.9423 of 2018 has prayed for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of Gat No.198 (old 1051) admeasuring 00 Hectare 40 R, situated at Mouje-Dingrajwadi, Taluka-Shirur, District – Pune are illegal and have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act of 2013”). The petitioner seeks an order and direction to cancel the entries of lapsed acquisition in 7/12 extract of Gat No.198 and reinstate the entries in 7/12 extract before the acquisition proceedings.
3. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of Gat No.198 (old 1051) admeasuring 00 Hectare 20 R, situated at Dingrajwadi, Taluka-Shirur, District – Pune are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Affected Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (for short “the Act of 1976”).
4. The petitioners in contempt petition are project affected persons of the Chaskaman Project as the land belonging to the petitioners under the said project was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the public project. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had purchased 1/3rd part of the land from Gat No.74 of Village Darakwadi, Tal.Khed, Dist. Pune from Smt.Radhabai Sambhaji Gaikwad on 19th June 1971.
5. By and under the registered Agreement dated 19th June 1971, the petitioners have become the absolute owner of 1/3rd part of the land from Gat No.74. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 had also purchased 1/3rd part of the land from Gat No.74 of Village Darakwadi, Tal.Khed, Dist.Pune from Mr.Suresh Laxman Gaikwad and Mr. Rama Badaji Gaikwad on 20th June 1972 and have become the absolute owners thereof. The said property bearing No.74 was acquired for the purpose of public project.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the Collector of Pune has also given the certificate dated 18th February 2015 to the petitioners that their lands admeasuring 45 R out of the land bearing Gat No.74 are acquired for the public project i.e. Chaskaman project. The petitioners were informed by letter dated 24th March 2014 that an amount of Rs.5,299.25 is still lying with the District Resettlement Officer in the name of the petitioners. At the relevant time, the names of the petitioners were not mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed. The names of the petitioners were mutated into 7/12 extract and other revenue record on 2nd September 1987.
7. In pursuance of an order dated 2nd September 1987 passed by this Court, State Government constituted a committee to look into the grievances made by the project affected persons. The petitioners also made a representation on 19th December 2015. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition bearing No.4172 of 2016 for writ of mandamus against the respondents to forthwith allot the land admeasuring 1 Hector 60 R to the petitioners at Village Darakwadi, Tal.Khed, Dist.Pune under the provisions of the Act of 1976.
8. On 16th December 2016, this Court directed the respondents to dispose off the representation dated 19th October 2015 filed by the petitioners on its own merits within a period of three months from the date of the said order. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents did not comply with the order dated 19th October 2015 though were called upon by the learned District Collector to comply with the order passed by this Court.
9. The petitioners filed Contempt Petition bearing No.38 of 2020 in this Court on 30th January 2019. On 17th June 2019, this Court directed t
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Drawing of Panchanama of taking possession is mode of taking possession in land acquisition cases – Land vests in Government and any re-entry is unlawful.
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....
The court emphasized that land acquisition must follow due process, and failure to do so renders the acquisition invalid, protecting the property rights of individuals.
Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse when both possession is not taken and compensation remains unpaid, as established in the Indore Development Authority case.
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.
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
