Disposed

Ramakant Krishna Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2011WP/859/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the period for issuing a Section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act expired more than a year after the Section 4 notification. Consequently, the Section 4 notification became ineffective. Dismissing the petitions as the matter cannot be resolved without a fresh notification, the court allowed the petitioners to challenge any new notification.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of as Section 6 notification could not be issued; petitioners allowed to challenge fresh notifications.

Ramakant Krishna Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

pvr １ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4013 OF 2010

¶5

1.Narayan Keshav Joshi & Ors....Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.State of Maharashtra & ors....Respondents

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.3879 OF 2010

¶10

Koyana Dam Vikas Mandal.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

vs.

¶13

1.State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

AND

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.2264 OF 2010

¶17

1.Raghunath Shripath Bhosale

¶18

& Ors....Petitioners

¶19

vs.

¶20

1.State of Maharashtra & ors....Respondents

¶21

AND

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.859 OF 2011

¶23

1.Ramakant Krishna Patil & Ors....Petitioners
vs.

¶24

1.State of Maharashtra & ors....Respondents

¶25

pvr ２ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶26

Mrs.S.S.Gokhale, for Petitioners

¶27

Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶28

Mr.G.S.Hegde, for Intervener.

¶29

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶30

DATED: 20th December,2011.

¶31

P.C.:-

¶32

1.Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the

¶33

petitions finally by consent of the parties. For

¶34

the purpose of disposal of these petitions the
following can be taken as admitted facts:-

¶35

That on 18.1.2010 a notification under

¶36

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued

¶37

applying the urgency clause dispensing with the
inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition

¶38

Act. This notification is challenged in the
present petitions. The petitioners� contention

¶39

was that considering the purpose for which the

¶40

land is to be acquired, urgency clause should not
have been invoked. A notification under Section 4

¶41

pvr ３ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶42

of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the

¶43

Official Gazette on 19.1.2010. It is common

¶44

ground that the last date of publication of
notification under Section 4 of the Land

¶45

Acquisition Act is 4.2.2010 when it was published
at Chawadi of the village. The petitions were

¶46

filed in this Court challenging Section 4

¶47

Notification. In that notification admittedly on

¶48

29.3.2010 the Court made an interim order

¶49

directing the parties to maintain status quo till

¶50

the next date. The matter was adjourned from time
to time. It was before the Court on 9.8.2010. ON

¶51

that date the Court directed that the order of

¶52

status quo will continue till the next date i.e.
24.8.2010. The order was �Status quo to continue

¶53

till then.�. It is common ground that the matter
did not appear on board on 24.8.2010. Thereafter,

¶54

it appeared on the board, but the Court did not

¶55

continue the operation of the interim order. The
authorities under the Land Acquisition Act have
admittedly not issued notification under Section

¶56

pvr ４ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶57

6 of the Land Acquisition Act till today.
Excluding the period during which the interim
order made by the Court was operating, period of
more than one year has elapsed between the date
of publication of notification under Section 4 of
the Act and today, still notification under

¶58

Section 6 of the Act has not been issued.

¶59

Therefore, now in view of the provisions of sub-
section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act as a period of more than one year has been
elapsed, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act
cannot be made. The law is clearly laid down by

¶60

the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case

¶61

�Ashok Kumar & Others Vs. State of Haryana &
Anr., (2007)3 Supreme Court Cases 470�.

¶62

Therefore, there is no question now of
considering the question �whether the authorities
were justified in invoking the urgency clause
while issuing notification under Section 4 of the

¶63

Act.� On behalf of the intervener a submission
was made that when the Court continued the status

¶64

pvr ５ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶65

quo order till next date on 9.8.2010, the interim
order will continue to operate though the Court
did not make any order continuing that interim
order. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment
of learned Single Judge in the case �Govinda
Bhagoji Kamable & Ors. Vs. Sadu Bapu Kamable &

¶66

Ors., 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 651. Perusal of that

¶67

judgment shows that the learned Single Judge in
that case was not considering the meaning of the

¶68

term �interim order to continue till then�. The
Court was considering the meaning of the term
�interim order in the meanwhile�. The Supreme

¶69

Court on the other hand, it appears that, has
considered the controversy in the judgment in the
case �Ashok Kumar & Ors.� referred to above. In
our opinion, what is observed by the Supreme
Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 is relevant, it
reads as under:-

¶70

�11.The short question which
arises for consideration in this
appeal is as to whether the

¶71

pvr ６ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶72

order of ad interim injunction
granted by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Panipat,
was operative till 9.9.1998 or
19.8.2000. We have noticed

¶73

hereinbefore the nature of the
orders passed by the learned
Civil Judge. Although in its
order dated 30.8.1997, the
learned Civil Judge, used the
term �in the meantime�, which

¶74

was repeated in its order dated
24.9.1997, but in the subsequent
ordersbeginningfrom
19.11.1997, the expression used
was �till then�.
12.The term of the order of
the learned Judge, in our
opinion, does not leave any
manner of doubt whatsoever that
the interim order was only
extended from time to time. The

¶75

interim order having been
extended till a particular date,
the contention raised by the
respondents herein that they
were under a bona fide belief
that the injunction order would

¶76

pvr ７ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶77

continue till it was vacated
cannot be accepted.�

¶78

Thus, it is clear that when a Court directs that
interim order to continue till a particular date
and if the Court on that date does not continue
the interim order, the interim order will cease
to operate. The observations of the Supreme Court

¶79

quoted above have been made with reference to the

¶80

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Therefore, in our opinion, as now no notification
under Section 6 of the Act can be issued pursuant

¶81

to Section 4 Notification which is challenged in
the petition, no useful purpose will be served by
considering the validity or otherwise of Section

¶82

4 Notification. The petitions are, therefore,
disposed of. It is clarified that this order

¶83

will not come in the way of the State Government
issuing fresh notification under Section 4 of the
Act.

¶84

pvr ８ wplp4013-3879-2264-879

¶85

2.In the present petitions, the petitioners

¶86

have also challenged notification issued under
Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected
Persons Rehabilitation Act. As we have held that
Section 4 Notification issued for the project has
become ineffective, it is not necessary for us to
examine the challenge to the notification issued

¶87

under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project
Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act. However, in
case the authorities decide to issue a fresh
notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the petitioners shall be at
liberty to challenge, while challenging the
fresh notification issued under Section 4 of the

¶88

Act, the notification issued under the
MaharashtraProjectAffectedPersons

¶89

Rehabilitation Act,1999.

¶90

(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶91

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Ramakant Krishna Patil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Krishna Patil 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ms. Aruna Shankar Wadekar

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Shri. Dilip Jaisingh Saswant

Shri. Sunil Shripat Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Koyana Dam Vikas Mandal Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Narayan Keshav Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Mak Pan Associates and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.