Advocates:
['KALE AJEET B', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'G P', 'R/ SERVED', 'SURWASE B R']

1

WP NO.2465/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.2465 of 2013

1.

Ramchandra s/o Shankarrao Shete,

Age: 78 yrs., Occ. Agri.

2.

Manik s/o Shankarrao Shete,

Age 63 yrs., Occ-Agri.

3.

Pradip s/o Shankarrao Shete,

Age 53 yrs. Occ. Agri.

4.

Sau.Pradnya w/o Pradip Shete,

Age 50 yrs. Occ.Agri.

5.

Raviraj s/o Pradip Shete,

Age 34 yrs. Occ. Agri.

6.

Giriraj s/o Pradip Shete,

Age 28 yrs. Occ. Agri.,

7.

Suhas s/o Suresh Shete,

Age 36 yrs. Occ. Agri.,

8.

Suchit s/o Suresh Shete,

Age 32 yrs. Occ. Agri.

9.

Suchendra Suresh Shete,

Age 27 yrs. Occ. Agri.

10.

Sanjog s/o Subhash Shete,

Age 38 yrs. Occ. Agri.

11.

Vishwesh s/o Vijaykumar Shete,

Age 39 yrs. Occ. Agri.

12.

Madhav s/o Vijaykumar Shete,

Age 28 yrs. Occ.Agri.

2

WP NO.2465/2013

13.

Prashant s/o Pramod Shete

Age 45 yrs. Occ. Agri.

14.

Laxmikant s/o Pramod Shete,

Age 43 yrs. Occ. Agri.

15.

Smt.Mangla Vijaykumar Shete,

Age 60 yrs. Occ. Agri.

All r/o Dharur, Tal.Dharur,

Dist.Beed.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Through Collector, Beed.

2.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1,

Beed ( H.Q.) Ambajogai.

3.

The Executive Engineer,

Minor Irrigation Division, Beed (H.Q.),

Ambajogai.

...RESPONDENTS

...

Mr.Ajeet B.Kale, Advocate for the

petitioners.

Mr.N.B.Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and

2.

Mr. B.R.Survase, Adv., for respondent no.3.

...

CORAM: R.M.BORDE & R.V.GHUGE, JJ.

DATE : June 27th, 2013

***

3

WP NO.2465/2013

ORAL JUDGMENT:( Per R.M.Borde, J.)

1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith

and heard finally with the consent of learned

Counsel for the respective parties.

3.

Petitioners claim that their lands have

been taken in possession by respondent

authorities on 1.1.2005 by entering into private

negotiations. The proceedings of acquisition of

lands were initiated with issuance of

notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

on 6.12.2007. The petitioners, under the award

passed by the Land Acquisition Officer were held

entitled to receive statutory benefits after

initiation of proceedings under the Act i.e.

since 6.12.2007 and it has been recorded in the

award that the petitioners would be entitled to

claim rental compensation in accordance with the

policy prescribed by the State Government from

the acquiring body. The petitioners, as such,

have tendered applications seeking rental

compensation since their lands were taken in

possession prior to initiation of land

acquisition proceedings. Surprisingly enough, the

acquiring body communicated the petitioners that

since there is change in the policy since

4

WP NO.2465/2013

17.4.2003, the petitioners would not be entitled

to claim rental compensation. The communication

issued by the acquiring body is without

application of mind for the reason that,

according to petitioners, their lands have been

taken in possession prior to initiation of land

acquisition proceedings, and the acquiring body

cannot deny payment of rental compensation, since

they have themselves committed wrongful act of

taking over possession of the property without

taking recourse to provisions of law. Even

otherwise, it is for the Special Land Acquisition

Officer and the Collector to determine the amount

of

rental

compensation

after

conducting

appropriate enquiry into the matter.

4.

In the facts and circumstances of the

case, without going into further details, we deem

it appropriate to direct the Collector and the

Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the

application/s tendered by the petitioners for

grant of rental compensation on its own merits in

accordance with law, and as expeditiously as

possible preferably, within a period of six

months from today.

If the petitioners are held to be entitled to

receive the compensation, t