Dismissed

Maruti Laxman Chorghe ( Deceased ) v. the Special Land Acquistion Officer,Raigad

Bombay HC18 Aug 2005WP/2818/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In several writ petitions, petitioners challenged delay by the Collector in issuing award notices under the Land Acquisition Act, causing higher court fees due to a 1997 amendment. The Court held delay does not violate the Act. Petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writs discharged; no order as to costs. Issue of document copies kept open for Reference Court.

Maruti Laxman Chorghe ( Deceased ) Vs the Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2818 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2817 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2819 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2820 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2821 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2822 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2823 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2824 OF 1997
 With
 WRIT PETITION NO.2825 OF 1997

¶4

WP No.2818 of 1997

¶5

 Shri Maruti Laxman Chorghe, )
 since deceased through his )
 legal heirs )

¶6

 1. Smt.Laxmibai Maruti Chorghe, )
 Adult. )

¶7

 2. Shri Gopal Maruti Chorghe, )
 Adult, )

¶8

 3. Shri Manohar Maruti Chorghe, )
 Adult, Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 all)
 residing at Poyanje, )
 Taluka - Panvel, )
 District - Raigad. )

¶9

 4. Smt.Vanita Balaram Gaikar, )
 Adult, residing at Ajivali, )
 Taluka - Panvel, )
 District - Raigad. )
 5. Smt.Priti Pramod Patil, Adult, )
 residing at Chirner, )
 Taluka - Panvel, )
 District - Raigad. ).. Petitioners

¶10

 - 2 -

¶11

 Versus

¶12

`1.`	`The Special Land Acquisition )` `Officer (Minor Irrigation) Raigad)` `Alibag, District - Raigad. )`
`2.`	`The Taluka Inspector of Land )` `Records, Panvel Taluka, having )` `his office at Panvel, )` `Dist : Raigad. )`
`3.`	`The Collector, District Raigad, )` `having his office at Alibag, )` `District - Raigad. )`
`4.`	`The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents` `--`

¶13

WP No.2817 of 1997

¶14

`1.`	`Smt.Parvatibai Mahadu Thakur, )` `Adult, )`
`2.`	`Shri Anant Mahadu Thakur, Adult,)`
`3.`	`Shri Dnyaneshwar Mahadu Thakur, )` `Adult, )`
`4.`	`Miss Nandu Mahadu Thakur, Adult,)` `Petitioner Nos.1 to 4, all )` `residing at Poyanje, )` `Taluka -Panvel, District-Raigad.)`
`5.`	`Smt.Manda Lakhu Thombare, Adult,)` `residing at Asaroti, )` `Taluka - Khalapur, )` `District - Raigad. )..Petitioners.`
	`Versus`
`1.`	`The Special Land Acquisition )` `Officer (Minor Irrigation) Raigad)` `Alibag, District - Raigad. )`
`2.`	`The Taluka Inspector of Land )`

¶15

 - 3 -

¶16

 Records, Panvel Taluka, having )
 his office at Panvel, )
 Dist : Raigad. )
 3. The Collector, District Raigad, )
 having his office at Alibag, )
 District - Raigad. )
 4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents
 --

¶17

WP No.2819 of 1997
 Anant Baliram Sontakke, Adult, )
 residing at Poyanje, )
 Taluka: Panvel, District-Raigad. ).. Petitioner.
 Vs.

¶18

 1. The Special Land Acquisition )
 Officer (Minor Irrigation) Raigad)
 Alibag, District - Raigad. )
 2. The Taluka Inspector of Land )
 Records, Panvel Taluka, having )
 his office at Panvel, )
 Dist : Raigad. )
 3. The Collector, District Raigad, )
 having his office at Alibag, )
 District - Raigad. )
 4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents
 --
WP No.2820 of 1997

¶19

 Vasant Dhundiraj Joshi, Adult, )
 residing at Poyanje, )
 Taluka - Panvel, District ; Raigad. ).. Petitioner.
 Vs.
 1. The Special Land Acquisition )
 Officer, Raigad, Alibag, )

¶20

 - 4 -

¶21

 District - Raigad. )
 2. The Taluka Inspector of Land )
 Records, Panvel Taluka, having )
 his office at Panvel, )
 Dist : Raigad. )
 3. The Collector, District Raigad, )
 having his office at Alibag, )
 District - Raigad. )
 4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents
 --

¶22

WP No.2821 of 1997

¶23

 Bhagirathi Pandurang Mate, )
 since deceased through her heir )
 and legal representative )
 Namdeo Mahadu Kadav, Adult, )
 residing at Poyanje, )
 Taluka - Panvel, District ; Raigad. ).. Petitioner.
 Vs.
 1. The Special Land Acquisition )
 Officer, Raigad, Alibag, )
 District - Raigad. )
 2. The Taluka Inspector of Land )
 Records, Panvel Taluka, having )
 his office at Panvel, )
 Dist : Raigad. )
 3. The Collector, District Raigad, )
 having his office at Alibag, )
 District - Raigad. )
 4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents
 --
WP No.2822 of 1997
 Balu Vithu Thakur, Adult, )
 residing at Poyanje, )
 Taluka - Panvel, District ; Raigad. ).. Petitioner.

¶24

 - 5 -

¶25

`Vs.` `1. The Special Land Acquisition )` `Officer, Raigad, Alibag, )` `District - Raigad. )`
`2. The Taluka Inspector of Land )` `Records, Panvel Taluka, having )` `his office at Panvel, )` `Dist : Raigad. )`
`3. The Collector, District Raigad, )` `having his office at Alibag, )` `District - Raigad. )`
`4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents` `--`
`WP No.2823 of 1997`
`Gopal Balu Padval, Adult, )` `residing at Barwai, )` `Taluka - Panvel, District ; Raigad. ).. Petitioner.`
`Vs.`
`1. The Special Land Acquisition )` `Officer, (Minor Irrigation) )` `Raigad, Alibag, District-Raigad.)`
`2. The Taluka Inspector of Land )` `Records, Panvel Taluka, having )` `his office at Panvel, )` `Dist : Raigad. )`
`3. The Collector, District Raigad, )` `having his office at Alibag, )` `District - Raigad. )`
`4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents` `--`
`WP No.2824 of 1997`
`1. Kamalakar Baliram Sontakke, )`

¶26

 - 6 -

¶27

`Adult, )` `residing at Poyanje, )` `Taluka-Panvel, District-Raigad. )`
`2. Prabhakar Baliram Sontakke, )` `Adult, residing at Chambhari, )` `Taluka-Panvel, District-Raigad. )..Petitioners`
`Versus`
`1. The Special Land Acquisition )` `Officer, (Minor Irrigation) )` `Raigad, Alibag, District-Raigad.)`
`2. The Taluka Inspector of Land )` `Records, Panvel Taluka, having )` `his office at Panvel, )` `Dist : Raigad. )`
`3. The Collector, District Raigad, )` `having his office at Alibag, )` `District - Raigad. )`
`4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents` `--` `WP No.2825 of 1997`

¶28

`Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar, Adult, )` `residing at Plot No.22, )` `Middle Class Housing Society, Panvel,)` `Taluka - Panvel, District ; Raigad. ).. Petitioner.`
`Vs.`
`1. The Special Land Acquisition )` `Officer, Raigad, Alibag, )` `District - Raigad. )`
`2. The Taluka Inspector of Land )` `Records, Panvel Taluka, having )` `his office at Panvel, )` `Dist : Raigad. )`
`3. The Collector, District Raigad, )`

¶29

 - 7 -

¶30

 having his office at Alibag, )
 District - Raigad. )

¶31

 4. The State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents
 --

¶32

 Shri Rajesh Datar, Advocate, for the petitioners in
 all the above writ petitions.

¶33

 Shri V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondents in all the
 above writ petitions.
 --

¶34

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

¶35

 DATED: 18TH AUGUST, 2005

¶36

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

¶37

 1. Since common questions of law and facts arise
 in these petitions, they were heard together and are
 being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶38

 2. In these petitions, the only grievance which

¶39

 is sought to be canvassed before us relates to the
 inordinate delay in issuing the notice under Section
 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter
 called as "the said Act", and on that count, the
 petitioners being compelled to pay higher court fee,
 as during the period after passing of the award under
 Section 11 and before issuance of notice under Section
 12(2) of the said Act, there was amendment to the

¶40

 - 8 -

¶41

 Bombay Court Fees Act, 1958 which came into force on
 21st February, 1997.

¶42

 3. Consequent to the initiation of the land
 acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties
 in question by issuance of notification under Section
 4 of the said Act on 12th September, 1995, the land in
 question was acquired and the award in that respect
 was passed on 10th December, 1996 after following the
 due process, as prescribed under the said Act.
 However, the said notice under Section 12(2) pursuant
 to the award was issued only on 3rd February, 1997 and
 the same was received by the petitioners in the month
 of March, 1997. The petitioners being dissatisfied
 with the compensation awarded have filed the
 application under Section 18 of the said Act.

¶43

 4. The Bombay Court Fees Act was amended with
 effect from 21st February, 1997 and maximum court fee
 payable for the purpose of application under Section
 18 of the said Act was enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to
 Rs.75,000/-. In other words, it is the contention of
 the petitioners that if the notice under Section 12(2)
 of the said Act, in the case in hand, was issued to
 the petitioners immediately after the declaration of
 the award dated 10th December, 1996, the petitioners

¶44

 - 9 -

¶45

 could have filed reference application by paying the
 court fee in accordance with the provisions of law, as
 were in force prior to 21st February, 1997. However,
 on account of the amendment to the Court Fees Act with
 effect from 21st February, 1997 and since the notice
 under Section 12(2) of the said Act was issued much
 after the said date in relation to the award dated
 10th December, 1996, the petitioners were compelled to
 pay the higher court fee.

¶46

 5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the

¶47

 parties and perusal of the records as well as the
 relevant provisions of law, it is apparent that in
 terms of Section 12(2) of the said Act, the Collector
 is expected to issue notice of his award to the
 persons interested immediately after the declaration
 of the award under Section 11. Undoubtedly,
 sub-section (2) specifically states that the Collector
 shall give immediate notice of his award to such of
 the persons interested as are not present personally
 or by their representatives when the award is made.
 Referring to the term "immediate notice", it was
 sought to be argued that the Collector was duty bound
 to issue notice immediately after 10th December, 1996
 and having failed to do so, the petitioners were
 compelled to pay higher court fees on account of

¶48

 - 10 -

¶49

 amendment brought to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959
 during the period between the declaration of the award
 and issuance of the said notice.

¶50

 6. The expression "immediate notice" cannot be
 understood as being the day following the declaration
 of the award. Undoubtedly, the said expression has
 been used to ensure that the persons interested, whose
 land is acquired, are able to get compensation as
 expeditiously as possible on account of their land
 having acquired. The provisions of law comprised
 under Section 4 onwards of the said Act and
 particularly sub-section (3) of Section 6 clearly
 reveals that a declaration issued under Section 6
 shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed
 for a public purpose and after making such
 declaration, the Government may acquire the land in
 the manner thereinafter provided. Evidently, it would
 create a sort of embargo over the land, and the owner
 thereof would not be in a position to deal with the
 land in the manner he may otherwise desire. In such
 circumstances therefore even Section 11A prescribes a
 period of limitation for passing the award within two
 years from the date of the declaration under Section
 6. Considering the same, the authorities are
 certainly expected to inform the persons interested

¶51

 - 11 -

¶52

 about the award as expeditiously as possible as soon
 as the award is declared. However, what would be the
 reasonable period for such intimation to the persons
 interested would depend upon the facts of each case
 and there cannot be any general rule as such which can
 fix any particular period for the purpose of issuance
 of notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act. In any
 case, the statutory provision under the said Act does
 not create any right as such in favour of the persons
 interested to get intimation of the award within any
 specific period consequent to the declaration of the
 award. In such circumstances therefore even assuming
 that there is a delay in issuing the notice under
 Section 12(2) of the said Act after pronouncement of
 the award, it would not lead to the conclusion that
 any right having been created in favour of the persons
 interested in the land in question apart from claiming
 interest on compensation for the relevant period.
 Indeed, Section sub-sections (1A) and (2) of Section
 23 of the said Act provide for sufficient safeguard
 regarding the right of the persons interested on
 account of any such delay on the part of the
 authorities.

¶53

 7. For the reasons stated above therefore, merely
 because there is delay on the part of the authorities

¶54

 - 12 -

¶55

 in communicating the award in the matter in hand, and
 during the period of delay, there was amendment to the
 Bombay Court Fees Act, pursuant to which the
 petitioners were liable to pay higher court fee, it
 cannot be said that the petitioners would be entitled
 for the relief in the nature asked for. There being
 no rights of the petitioners affected, nor there being
 any failure on the part of the respondents to perform
 their duty as such, the question of issuance of writ
 of mandamus directing the respondents to accept
 reference application of payment of lesser court fees
 and in accordance with the provisions which were in
 force prior to 21st February, 1997 does not arise. No
 writ can be issued contrary to the statutory
 provisions.

¶56

 8. As regards the relief for payment of balance
 amount, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has
 fairly submitted that such amount has already been
 paid, and therefore, the prayer in that regard does
 not survive.

¶57

 9. As regards the third point which relates to
 furnishing of copies of various documents,
 undisputedly, the petitioners have filed the reference
 applications and the Court dealing with such reference

¶58

 - 13 -

¶59

 applications can certainly entertain the appropriate
 applications in terms of the provisions of law
 comprised under Order 11 and 13 of the Code of Civil
 Procedure, 1908. The parties are also entitled to
 serve appropriate notices for production of documents
 for inspection as well as for supply of copies and in
 case of failure on the part of the Opponent, the
 parties can also approach the Court in the said
 reference applications for appropriate orders in that
 regard. Needless to say that in case the petitioners
 file such application in such reference proceedings,
 the Reference Court will have to pass an appropriate
 order on such application, in accordance with the
 provisions of law. At this stage, it is too premature
 to issue any direction as such to the respondents to
 supply copy of any document. We are keeping the said
 issue open to be agitated before the Reference Court.

¶60

 10. In the circumstances, therefore, nothing
 survives in these petitions and the petitions are
 accordingly disposed of. Rule in all these petitions
 stands discharged with no order as to costs.

¶61

 11. Before we part with the matter, it is to be noted
 that the petitioners have deposited the court fee
 amount before the Reference Court. The Reference

¶62

 - 14 -

¶63

 Court will have to adjust such amount towards the
 appropriate court fee payable on each reference
 application at the time of disposal of the reference
 applications.

¶64

 (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J)

¶65

 ( V.M.KANADE, J)

Maruti Laxman Chorghe ( Deceased ) v. the Special Land Acquistion Officer,Raigad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Laxman Chorghe ( Deceased ) v. the Special Land Acquistion Officer,Raigad

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

Sambhaji Sopan Koshti and Ors. Vs Tahasildar and Ors.

Laxman B. Veer Vs Spl.Land Acq.Officer and Ors.

Bhaskar G. Thorat and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Harbansing Ghattarsingh and Another Vs Shri Pradeep B. Shingore

Kaluram Hawaba Potale and Otehrs Vs the State of Maharasthsra

Shri Kantilal Lavajibhai Kapadia Vs the Administrator Silvasa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli andO