Allowed

Hanumantrao Shridharrao Deshpande v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2010WP/1152/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State and Zilla Parishad to pass an award and pay compensation for land acquired for public purpose but not due to abnormal delay. It ordered a district-wide inquiry into similar negligence.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass award and pay compensation within one year; Collector directed to investigate negligence and initiate departmental action.

Hanumantrao Shridharrao Deshpande Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 W.P.No.1152.08

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1152 OF 2008

¶4

1. Hanumantrao S/o Shridharrao Deshpande, Age 67 years,Occupation Agriculture, R/o Tawasitad,Tal.Ausa, District Latur (Deceased through L.Rs. 1-A. Anandraj Hanumantrao Deshpande, Age 48 years,Occupation Agriculture, R/o Tawasitad Tq.Ausa,District Latur.

¶5

..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, General Administration Dept. Mantralaya,Mumbai. 2. The Collector,Osmanabad, District Osmanabad. 3. Zilla Parishad Osmanabad, Through its Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 4. Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad (Works) Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.A.B.Kale, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P.for Respondents No.1 and 2. Shri K.J.Ghute Patil,Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. ...

¶6

2 W.P.No.1152.08

¶7

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND

¶8

 K.K. TATED, JJ.

¶9

 DATE : 29TH JULY, 2010.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :( PER : NARESH H.PATIL, J.)

¶11

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the learned Counsel of the parties,
matter is heard and finally decided at the stage
of admission.

¶12

2.It is contended that the petitioner's land was

¶13

utilised for construction of road in the year
1985, without following procedure as established

¶14

in law. Admittedly, the petitioner's land was
acquired for public purpose. Therefore, the
petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1986
for injunction against the State of Maharashtra
and Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.The learned Civil
Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad, by its Judgment
and order dated 31st July, 1996 partly decreed the
suit and the respondents-Ori. defendants were
directed to pay damages along with compensation as

¶15

3 W.P.No.1152.08

¶16

per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

¶17

3. The respondents i.e. Chief Executive Officer
and Executive Engineer filed Misc. Civil
Application No. 125 of 2003 for condonation of
delay, as there was delay in preferring Appeal
against the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil
Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in Special Civil

¶18

Suit No.17 of 1986. The Ad-hoc District Judge,
Osmanabad, by an order dated 27.04.2007 rejected
the application for condonation of delay.

¶19

4. The petitioner placed reliance on the order

¶20

passed on 01/03/2007, by the Chairman of the
Committee, who was entrusted to entertain the
grievances of this nature. In spite of the same,
the State did not initiate proceedings for
acquisition of land or paid any damages to the
petitioner.

¶21

5. Consequent to the notice issued by this

¶22

Court, the respondents No.3 and 4 filed affidavit-

¶23

4 W.P.No.1152.08

¶24

in-reply. The respondents No.3 and 4 also filed
additional affidavit-in-reply through Mr.Arun
Bhagwan Shinde, Executive Engineer, Zilla
Parishad, Osmanabad. In Para No.2 of the affidavit
in reply deponent contends that-

¶25

“2I say that, on 30.01.2010, I have
received communication from the
counsel appearing for the Zilla
Parishad, informing that, the
petition came up for hearing on
29.01.2009. This Hon’ble High
Courtaskedhimtotake
instructions within how much
time,theprocessofland
acquisition will be started by
Zilla Parishad. In pursuance to
the communication issued, the
relevant record as traced out and
it is seen that the Zilla Parishad
has forwarded proposal to the
Collector, Osmanabad on 7.11.2001.
Thereafter, on 15.11.2001, the
Office of Collector, Osmanabad
informedaboutcertain
discrepancies and accordingly on
13.12.2001, another communication
is issued to the Collector,
Osmanabad. Thereafter, again on
14.3.2002 the office of Collector
informed for compliance of certain
discrepancies in the proposal. It
seems that, no further progress is
done since there was communication
in respect of proceedings to be
filed in the Court.”

¶26

6. It is contended that in spite of taking

¶27

5 W.P.No.1152.08

¶28

steps, the petitioner was deprived of his right to
claim compensation, though his property was
utilised by the State for Public purpose.
Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the
respondent No.2 through Dr.Ankush Bhanudasrao
Pinate, a Special Land Acquisition Officer, who
stated in para No.3 as under:-

¶29

“3. I say and submit that as stated
above the land record authorities
has directed to conduct joint
measurementandthereare
persuasion in the part of the
officeoftheSLAOvide
communicationdated11.2.2010,
20.3.2010, 29.3.2010, 22.04.2010,
21.05.2010 and 5.6.2010. The joint
measurement report is received on
11.7.2010andimmediately
thereafter notice u/s 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act is issued as well
as acquiring body is informed to
deposit acquisition amount to the
tune of Rs.75,000/-.”

¶30

7. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner submits that time bound programme has
to be issued by way of direction to the
authorities to complete acquisition proceedings
and the petitioner is entitled to rental
compensation in accordance with Government

¶32

6 W.P.No.1152.08

¶33

Resolution.

¶34

8. Mr.Ghute Patil, learned counsel appearing
for Zilla Parishad submits that Notification under
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has already
been issued on 12th July, 2010.

¶35

9. Smt.Kshirsagar, learned A.G.P. submits that

¶36

the State-Authorities have demanded an amount of
Rs.75,000/-(Rs. Seventy Five Thousand) from
acquiring body. The learned counsel appearing for
Acquiring Authority submits that within a week
amount would be deposited with the State as
preliminary advance.

¶37

10. The main question would be as to why this
abnormal delay occurred on the part of the
responsible Officers in initiating proceedings in

¶38

respect of acquisition of lands, which was
utilised for public purpose long back. The
responsibility is required to be fastened. We find
that explanation given by the responsible

¶39

7 W.P.No.1152.08

¶40

Officers by way of affidavit-in-reply, is not
convincing enough to arrive at conclusion that the
delay was due to some exceptional or unavoidable
circumstances. The Authorities ought to have
vigilant enough to the public grievances of this
nature.

¶41

11. We therefore, direct the respondent Nos.1 to
4 to pass Award in respect of the subject
Notification and pay amount under Award to the
claimants within a period of one year, from the
date of receipt of this order.

¶42

12. We direct the Collector, Osmanabad to issue

¶43

appropriate instructions to the Special Land
Acquisition Officers and other Officers concerned
to collect data from entire District as to whether
in similar situation cases are still pending for
issuance of Notification Under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act. This is essential as public
money is involved. Delayed payment and pendency of
such proceeding would put additional burden on

¶44

8 W.P.No.1152.08

¶45

public exchequer. The Collector, Osmanabad to

¶46

take up this issue urgently and issue appropriate
instructions. In case, the Collector finds that
some Officers are negligent and there is
dereliction in discharge of duties, appropriate
departmental action be taken in accordance with
law against such officers.

¶47

13. The respondents No.3 or 4 shall pay costs of
Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) to the petitioner
within four weeks.

¶48

14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶49

 Sd/- Sd/-

¶50

[K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶51

MTK

Hanumantrao Shridharrao Deshpande v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantrao Shridharrao Deshpande v. the State of Mah 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

Vishwanath Manikrao Chavan. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Secretary Dnyanprasarak Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs Vishwanath Manikrao Chavan and Ors.

Shambhuraje Madhavrao Bhosale Vs State of Mah

Gmidc, Aurangabad Vs Abdul Majid and Anr.

Ashokrao Raosaheb Deshmukh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vasant Thamaji Diwane Vs the State of Mah.