Allowed

Shri Arun Harishchandra Todekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2005WP/2661/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners challenged an award dated 16/08/2000 passed under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court affirmed that petitioners are entitled to claim enhancement of compensation based on an earlier reference court award for similar lands under the same notification, holding the impugned award unsustainable and quashing it.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 16/08/2000 under section 28A is quashed and set aside. Matter remanded to the Reference Court to decide the application dated 22/03/1988 within four months.

Shri Arun Harishchandra Todekar and Ors. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2661 OF 2003

¶5

Shri Arun Harishchandra Todekar ) 2. Shrimati Jijabai Harischandra Todekar) 3. Shri Gurunath Harischandra Todekar ) 4. Shri Vishwanath Harishchandra Todekar) 5. Shri Tarabai Harishchandra Todekar ) 6. Shri Mahendra Harishchandra Todekar ) All residing at village Kopra, Post ) Kharghar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad)..Petitioners V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra ) through the Secretary to the ) Government of Maharashtra, ) Revenue & Forest Department, ) Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ) ) 2. The Additional Collector, Raigad, ) Office of the Collector, Raigad, ) at Alibag, District Raigad ) ) 3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, ) Metro Center No.3, Panvel, ) Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. )..Respondents --Mr. C.G. Gavnekar with Mr. H.S. Hiranandany for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & V. M. KANADE, JJ.

¶8

DATE: 24th August, 2005.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

¶10

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and

¶11

the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

¶12

respondents.

¶13

:2:

¶14

2. The Petitioners challenge the	aw	ard	dated
16/08/2000 passed under section 28A	of	the	Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 being in contravention of the provisions of law.
3. The Petitioners’ land situated	at M	ouje	Kharghar,
Taluka Panvel, District Raigad was	sought	to	be
acquired along with the land belonging	to s	ome	other
persons wherein those persons had	prefer	red	reference
under section 18 for enhancement of	the	com	pensation
being dissatisfied with the compensatio	n aw	arded	by
the Land Acquisition Officer. The	said	pr	oceedings
were registered as LAR 39/85 in the	court	of	District
Judge, Raigad, Alibag. Consequent to	the	award	passed
by the Reference Court in the said LAR	No.39	of	1985
on 31/12/1987 enhancing the compensation	in	favou	r of
the applicants in the said	procee	dings,	the
petitioners herein filed an applicatio	n	under	section
28A of the said Act for redete	rmination	of	the
compensation in relation to their land	acquire	d in	the
matter under the same notification by	which	the	land
of the applicant in LAR No. 39 of	1985	was	acquired.
The said application was filed on 22/0	3/1988.		Since
the said application was not decided	for	a	long
period, the petitioners approached this	Court	by	Writ

¶15

			:	3:
Petition	No	.3379 o	f 1	998	wherein d	irection	was	issued
by	this	Court on	20/0	7/1998	to dispose	of	the	said
application	under	section	2	8A	within a	peri	od of	three
months.		Thereafter,	t	he	Land	Acqui	sition	Officer
disposed	of	the	said	applic	ation under		section	28A
under	award	dated	16/08/2	000.	However,	no	notice	of
the	said	award	was	given	to the	petiti	oners.	The
Petitioners	came	to	kno	w	about the	same	only	on
16/03/2001,	whe	n their	a	dvocate	attended	the	office	of
the	Land	Acquisition	Offi	cer.	On pe	rusal	of the	copy
of	the a	ward, it	wa	s rev	ealed to	the	petitioners	that
the	claim	of t	he	petitioner	s for en	hanceme	nt of	the
compensati	on in	terms	of	the	award	dated	31/12/1987	in
LAR	No.	39 of	1985	was	rejected s	olely	on the	ground
that	no	change w	as p	ossible	in the	amount	which	was

¶16

awarded under earlier award under section 11 of the

¶17

said Act. Hence, the present Petition.

¶18

4.	The learned advocate	appearing for	the p	etitioners
while	assailing the impugned	award, submitt	ed that	the
impugned	award apparently	discloses	reference	to
intimation	by District Col	lector to	the	Land
Acquisition	Officer to the	effect that in	view o	f the
land	being already assessed	in relation	to	the
compensatio	n payable to	the petitioners	while	passing
the	award under section	11, it is not	possible	to

¶19

:4:

¶20

reassess the	mar	ket	value of such	land.	Obv	iously,
the rejection	of	th	e claim of the	pe	titioners	for
enhancement of	comp	ensation	is totally	illegal	and	not
in accordance	with	the	provisions of l	aw.	It is	well
settled that	once	the	Reference Court	e	nhances	the
compensation	in re	lation	to the land	acquire	d under	a
particular notifica	tion,	the	interested	persons	in	all
other pieces	of	land	covered by	the sa	me notif	ication
can approach	the		authorities for	refe	rence	under
section 28A	for	enh	ancement of	the	compe	nsation
awarded to s	uch p	ersons	based on the	award	passed	by
the Reference	Cou	rt.	Undisputedly, in	the	case	in
hand, the	petitione	rs	had filed an	applicati	on	dated
22/3/1988 for	enhance	ment	of compensation	on	the	basis
of the award	dated	31/12	/1987 in LAR	No.	39 of	1985.
It is no	t in	dispu	te that the pe	titioners’	land	and
the land which	was	the	subject matter of	LAR	No.	39
of 1985	were	acquire	d under the	same	notifi	cation.
Being so, the	impug	ned	award is not	sustaina	ble and	is
liable to be	set	aside	and the matter	will	have to	be
remanded to	the	Re	ference Court	to	decide	the

¶21

application of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶22

The Petition, therefore, is allowed. The impugned award is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is

¶23

:5:

¶24

remanded		to t	he R	eferen	ce	Co	urt	to	decide	the
application		dated	22/03/	1988	wit	hin	four	mo	nths	from
the	date	of	receipt	of	the	writ	of	this	court	after

¶25

hearing the parties in accordance with the provisions

¶26

of law.

¶27

(R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

¶28

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Shri Arun Harishchandra Todekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Arun Harishchandra Todekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Jagannath Ganpat Purav Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Shri v.R.Joshi Vs Maharashtra State Textile Corpn.Ltd. and Anr.

Ali Ahmed Khan and Anr. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors. and Mrs. Fahmida and Ors.

Prasad Vijay Inamdar Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaniwar Laxman Patil and Ors. Vs the Central Railways and Ors.