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

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5133 OF 1997

1. Shri Bhaskar Ganpati Thorat	)
2. Shri Lalaso Anna Thorat	)
3. Prakash Ganpati Thorat Patil, )
since deceased by his legal heris )
and representatives;	)
3a. Smt. Suchita Prakash Patil	)
aged 38 years, Occ. Business.	)
3b. Master Palak Prakash Patil,	)
aged 11 years, Occ. Education	)
through minor - guardian mother	)
abovenamed respondent No. 3a.	)
Both r/o Survey No.77/1/5, Flat	)
No.10, Yeshodhan Apartments,	)
Chaitraban Society, New Sangvi,	)
Pune - 411 027.	)
4. Shri Pradeep Ganpati Thorat	)
Patil.	)
5. Shri Krishna Dnyanu Thorat	)
6. Shri Anna Dnyanu Gaikwad	)
deceased by his legal representa- )
-tive Ashok Anna Gaikwad, Manager )
of joint Hindu family.	)
All adults occ- Agriculturists,	)
R/o Village Ond, Tal, Karad.	)
Dist: Satara	) ...Petitioners.
V/s
1. State of Maharashtra	)
Through the Secretary Revenue	)
and Forests Department, Mantralaya )
Mumbai- 400 032.	)
	)
2. The Divisional Commissioner, )
Pune Division, Pune.	) )
3. The District Resettlement	)
Officer, Stara.	)
	)
4. The Special Land Acquisition )
Officer No.16, Satara.	)
5. The Chief Engineer	)
Irrigation Department, Pune-11	) )
6. The Executive Engineer,	)
Minor Irrigation Division, Satara ) ...Respondents

¶4

:2:

¶5

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioners.

¶6

Respondents and their advocate absent.

¶7

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

¶8

DATE: 17th August, 2005.

¶9

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

¶10

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

None for the respondents, though duly served.

¶12

2. B	y the present Petition, the petitioners	are
seeking	direction for return of the land	acquired
under the	provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,	1894
on the	ground that certain authorities had proposed	to
the Col	lector for release of such land in favour	of
the erst	while occupants. While referring to	the
letter	dated 14/06/1990 by the Executive Engineer	of
Irrigation	Department, Satara, addressed to	the
Collector	of Satara, the learned advocate for	the
petitioners	submitted that the letter apparently	shows
that the	land in question is not required by	the
respondents	and, therefore, it was proposed to	be
released	in favour of the petitioners. However,	till
this date,	land has not been released in favour of	the
petitioners.	Attention has also been drawn to	the

¶13

order dated 23/12/1997 passed by Division Bench of

¶14

:3:

¶15

this Court in Writ Petition No.5649 of 1997.

¶16

3.	Upon	hearing	the		le	arned	advoca	te for	the
petitioners	and	on	perusal	of	r	ecord,	it is	not	in
dispute	that the	land	in	questio	n	was	duly	acquired	in
accordance	with	th	e provi	sions		of	law	comprised	under
the	Land Acqu	isition	Act,	18	94	and	the	award	in
respect	of	such	acquisition	was		passed	in	the	year
1986	and,	conseq	uent to	the		service	of	notice	under
section	12(2)	a	nd disb	ursemen	t	of	compe	nsation,	the
possession	of	the	acquired	land		was	also	taken.	It
was	only su	bsequent	to	the		possession	of	the	land

¶17

being taken that some of the authorities, proposed for

¶18

release of the land in question.

¶19

4.	Once i	t is	an	und	isputed fact	th	at		the	possession
of the	land	sought	to	b	e acquired	by		ap	plication	of
provisions o	f the	Land	Ac	qui	sition Act,	1	89	4	was	taken
consequent	to	the	pronoun	ce	ment of	the			award	and
disbursement	of	compen	sation		to the		in	ter	ested	persons
in such	land,	the	title	to	the land		ve	sts	in	the
Government,	free	from	e	nc	umbrances in	vie	w		of	the
provisions	of	law	compris	ed	under se	ction		16	of	the
said Act.		Being	so, the		respondents	or	an	y	of	the
Officers	of	the	responde	nts	are not	e	mp	ow	ered	under
the pro	visions	of the	said		Act to	release			any	part of

¶20

:4:

¶21

the acquired land so vested in	the Gov	ernment
otherwise than the provisions of law	comprised	under
the Land Revenue Code in force in the	State.	This
being undisputed position in law, me	rely because	some
of the authorities of the respondents	proposed	to
release a portion of the land acquired	under the	said
Act after title to the land is	vested in	the
Government in terms of section 16 of	the said	Act,
that cannot create any right in	favour of	the
petitioners to seek for writ of mandamu	s in the	nature
of direction to the respondents to rel	ease such	land
in favour of the petitioners. It is	also not	in
dispute that the petitioners have	been	duly
compensated for the acquired land.	There	being
neither any statutory provision which	can get	the
acquired land back to the perso	n interested	on
completion of the acquisition proceed	ings and	the
possession thereof being taken by the	Government	nor
any obligation cast upon the respond	ents to	release
the land already acquired and	vested in	the
Government, question of issuance of	any writ	of
mandamus or direction in the nature	asked for,	does
not arise. Even assuming that the	land acquired	is
kept fallow or without being used for	the purpose	for
which it was acquired, that would not	create any	right
in favour of the persons interes	ted from	which

¶22

:5:

¶23

ownership	or	possessio	n of th	e la	nd	was	acquire	d, to
seek	mandamus	for	return of	the	land	to	them.	Once
the	land	is acq	uired on	comple	tion	of	the	procedure
prescribed	under	the	said	Act	and		the	possession
thereof	is	taken,	it would	vest	in		the	Government

¶24

without any obligation of whatsoever nature in favour

¶25

of the erstwhile owner.

¶26

5.	The orde	r dated 2	3/12/19	97 in	W	rit Petition
No.5649	1997	merely directed	in	the	peculiar	facts of
that	case to	the responde	nts	to	take	appropriate
decision	on the	point which	was	involved	in	the said
petition.	The	said order	does	not	lay	down any
principle	of la	w as such.		Merely b	ecause	a direction
was	given in	the said deci	sion	in the	pecul	iar facts
of	that case,	it cannot be	sai	d that	petitio	ners are

¶27

also entitled to have similar directions in the case

¶28

in hand.

¶29

For the reasons stated above, the Petition fails

¶30

and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as

¶31

to costs.

¶32

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Bhaskar G. Thorat and Ors. v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charandas Megji and Ors. Vs State of Mah.and Ors.

Shriram R Patel Vs the Mun Corpn of Gr Bombay

Sampat Raj Dugar. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay.

Sambhaji Sopan Koshti and Ors. Vs Tahasildar and Ors.

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

Laxman Narayan Dhane Vs S.L.A.O. No. 4, Satara and Others