Allowed

Nishet Louis Pareira v. the Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2005WP/2155/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench held that once the State Government acquires land under the Land Acquisition Act, the title vests in the Government. Consequently, the Collector lacks jurisdiction under section 48(1) to release the land or cancel an allotment to a Project Affected Person.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20th January, 2005 quashed and set aside. Collector directed to restore possession of the land to the petitioner within four weeks.

Nishet Louis Pareira Vs the Collector and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 Writ Petition No. 2155 of 2005

¶4

 Nishet Louis Pareira ..Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

 1. The Collector, Kolhapur
 District Kolhapur and ors. ..Respondents

¶7

 Shri P.D.Dalvi for petitioner.

¶8

 Shri V.P.Malvankar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to
 5.

¶9

 Shri T.S.Ingale for respondent no.6.

¶10

CORAM: A.P.SHAH &
Dr.D.Y.CHANDRACHUDL JJ.
5th August,2005,

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 . Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶13

 respondents waive service.

¶14

 . By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶15

 . The petitioner is Project Affected Person. He

¶16

 was resident of village Konoli in Radhanagari

¶17

 Taluka of Kolhapur district. The village Konoli
 was affected due to irrigation project which was
 constructed across the river Dudhganga near
 Kalammawadi in Radhanagar Taluka of Kolhapur
 district. The State Government initiated
 acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition
 Act, 1894 and acquired the lands of the persons

¶18

-2-

¶19

 whose lands came under the command area of
 Dudhganga Project for rehabilitation of the Project
 Affected Persons.

¶20

 . The land bearing Gat No.581-A admeasuring 0.81
 Ares of village Konoli comes under Dudhganga
 Project and was acquired by the State Government
 for rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons.
 After completion of acquisition, the Government
 took land Gat No.581A in Government pool and some
 time in the year 1998 the said land was allotted to
 the petitioner as he was Project Affected Person.
 The land was handed over to the petitioner in the
 year 1998 itself.

¶21

 . Respondent no.6 who was the erstwhile owner of
 the land bearing Gat No.581-A filed an Appeal
 before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Region,

¶22

 Pune bearing Appeal

¶23

 No.Rehabilitation/Office-3/Appeal/207/1999 under
 section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and
 prayed that the said land which was given to the
 petitioner be dropped from the acquisition. In the
 Appeal, the petitioner was not made a party nor any
 notice was given to him at any point of time.

¶24

 . The Appeal was disposed of by the Additional

¶25

-3-

¶26

 Commissioner who vide his order dated 4th
 September, 2000 directed the Deputy Director to
 investigate whether Gat No.581-A, 581-B and 584
 come under command area and if the land does not
 come under the command area then to take
 appropriate decision in accordance with law.
 However, if the land is already taken by the
 Government then the acquisition shall be confirmed.

¶27

 . In the instant case, Gat No.581A was taken in
 possession by the Government in the year 1998 and
 was allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, as per
 the decision of the Commissioner, the acquisition
 was liable to be confirmed. The Collector of
 Kolhapur, however, by impugned order dated 20th
 January, 2005 directed cancellation of allotment
 made in favour of the petitioner and to take back
 the possession of the land from the Project
 Affected Person and hand over the same to its
 erstwhile owner.

¶28

 . We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
 the parties. Shri Dalvi, learned counsel appearing
 for the petitioner submitted and, in our opinion
 rightlhy, that the order of the Collector is
 totally illegal and contrary to the provisions of
 the Land Acquisition Act. Once the possession of

¶29

-4-

¶30

 the land is taken by the Government, then the land
 would vest in the Government and the Government has

¶31

 no jurisdiction to release the land under sec.48(1)
 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case
 the land was acquired by the Govt. and kept in
 Govt. pool and thereafter allotted to the
 petitioner. In other words right, title and
 interest in the land is already vested in the
 petitioner. The Collector has, therefore, no
 jurisdiction whatsoever to pass an order under
 sec.48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The order
 dated 20th January, 2005 is, therefore, quashed and
 set aside. The Collector is directed to restore
 the possession of the land to the petitioner within
 a period of 4 weeks from today. Rule is made
 absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

Nishet Louis Pareira v. the Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishet Louis Pareira v. the Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Bhagwan Sawant Vs Gram Panchayat Vairag and Ors.

Shankar Sahadev Waghmare Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Education Science and Technology Research and Ors.

Vashigaon Gramastha Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vaidya Vikas Charandas Kathane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vithoba Nama Ramoshi (Madane) and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Deelip Khandagale Vs Chief Exeuctive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors.