Allowed

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2012WP/1667/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the delayed initiation of land acquisition proceedings for their land utilized in 1989 for road construction. The High Court directed the Collector to issue Section 4 notification and complete proceedings within one year, while also initiating an inquiry regarding the delay.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to issue Notification u/s 4 within four weeks and complete proceedings within one year; direct inquiry regarding delay.

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 WP 1667 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.1667 of 2012

¶4

1)	Nemulal s/o Maroti Bhandwale Age 70 years,	) )
	Occupation: agriculture.	) )
2)	Davaji s/o Marot Bhandwale, Age 65 years,	) )
	Occupation: agriculture.	) )
3)	Kachru s/o Rambhau Bhandwale Age 60 years, Occupation: agriculture	) ) )

4)	Sundar s/o Rambhau Bhandwale, Age 55 years, Occupation: agriculture	) ) ) )
5)	Vitthal s/o Rambhau Bhandwale, Age 45 years,	) )
	Occupation: agriculture.	)

6)	Suryabhan s/o Bhaguji Udan, Age 55 years, Occupation: agriculture	) ) ) )
7)	Shesherao s/o Bhaguji Udan, Age 50 years, Occupation: agriculture.	) ) ) )
8)	Khairabai w/o Janardhan Udan, Age 50 years, Occu: agriculture & Household.	) ) ) )
9)	Sumanbai w/o Ramchandra Udan, Age 45 years, Occupation : agriculture, All residents of Beed, Taluka and District Beed.	) ) ) ) ).. Petitioners.

¶5

2 WP 1667 of 2012

¶6

Versus

¶7

1)	The State of Maharashtra	) )
2)	The Collector,	)
	(Special Land Acquisition	)
	Officer, Beed), District Beed.	) )
3)	Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Beed.	) ) )Respondents.
4)	Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Division, Beed.	) ) )

¶8

Shri. Manoj U. Shelke, Advocate, for petitioners.

¶9

Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE: 24^th JULY 2012

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Naresh H Patil, J.) :

¶12

Heard. 2) Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

¶13

The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs.

¶14

3 WP 1667 of 2012

¶15

“[A] By issuance of writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction in like nature, direct respondents i.e. respondent No.2 to initiate the proceeding under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land of the petitioners of which possession was taken for construction of Beed-Imampur Road.

¶16

[B] By issuance of writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction in like nature, direct the respondents to determine and to pay compensation of land as per market price and pay rental compensation of land and confer all other benefits for which petitioners would have entitle if land would have been taken in possession by following procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶17

[C] By issuance of writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction in like nature, direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 14 percent per annum an amount of value of land from the date of taking over possession of land till the date of realisation of whole amount.

¶18

[D] Pass such order and further order(s) as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶19

The petitioners' land admeasuring 11846 square meters from Survey Nos.37 & 39 and land admeasuring 4497 square meters from Survey No.29AA was utilized by the respondents in the year 1989 for construction of Beed – Imampur Road. The petitioners' contention is that the said land was acquired without taking recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners demanded compensation for the same

¶20

4 WP 1667 of 2012

¶21

but the respondents and their authorities have failed to initiate proceedings and pay compensation to the petitioners.

¶22

Consequent to the order passed by this Court, separate affidavits-in-reply have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the reply filed by respondent No.2 through Arvind Lahu Latkar, Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, the deponent contends in para 4 thus :

¶23

“ 4. However, it is submitted that the proposal of the land of Petitioners for acquisition of the land which are used for Beed-Imampur road is received in the office of Collector on 11.7.2012 vide letter dated 6.7.2012. It is submitted that, prompt action has been taken and permission as required is granted by Collector, Beed. Hence, it is submitted that, now by following due procedure of law i.e. by issuing section 4 notification and then by following stages under Land Acquisition Act award will be published.”

¶24

In the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3 – Executive Engineer, PWD, Beed, it is contended in para

¶25

3:-

¶26

“3. It is most humbly brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court that the proposal pertaining to the Petitioner’s land is sent to the office of Collector, Beed. It is humbly brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court that the proposal pertaining to the lands of the Petitioners was also sent earlier but as there were some lacunas it was

¶27

5 WP 1667 of 2012

¶28

sent back to the office of the Collector, Beed and for completing lacunas some time was required. There was no intention to delay the proposal and there was even no intention to disobey any order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Hence as on date the proposal for land acquisition of the Petitioners has been sent and now further proceedings will be done by the Competent Authority i.e. Collector, Beed.”

¶29

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the respondents are now taking effective steps to issue notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. An order dated 21-7-2012 passed by the Collector, Beed was relied upon.

¶30

Inspite of utilizing the petitioners' land for public purpose the respondents have failed to initiate action under the appropriate provisions of the Land Acquisition Act thereby depriving the petitioners of right to claim compensation. The land was utilized in the year 1989. The petitioners had made representation to the Collector in the year 2008 but it was not favourably considered. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several times the petitioners approached the authorities but they had orally informed that the land

¶31

6 WP 1667 of 2012

¶32

acquisition proceedings will be initiated. Therefore, the petitioners did not approach this Court earlier neither filed representation to the authorities prior to 2008 in writing.

¶33

We are not convinced regarding explanation given on abnormal delay which has taken place in initiating the land acquisition proceedings.

¶34

The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that, a departmental inquiry is initiated against the Executive Engineer who had failed to take diligent steps in respect of initiation of acquisition proceedings.

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(A) We direct the Collector, Beed and the respondents to take effective steps to issue Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act within four weeks from today.

¶37

(B) We direct the Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer to complete the land acquisition proceedings within one year from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification on its own merits.

¶38

7 WP 1667 of 2012

¶39

(C) The petitioners' claim for rental compensation shall also be considered as per the State policy and the amount towards rental compensation shall be paid to the petitioners after determining the same at the earliest.

¶40

(D) We direct the Collector to call for explanation from the concerned officers in respect of delay in initiating land acquisition proceedings. The Collector to initiate the inquiry against the responsible officers in this regard.

¶41

(E) The Collector, Beed, shall call for reports in respect of such identical proposals pending in Beed District and issue appropriate instructions / directions to the subordinate officers.

¶42

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶43

Authenticated copy of the order be given to the counsel for the parties. The parties to act on the authenticated copy.

¶44

Sd/- Sd/-

¶45

(U.D. SALVI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. 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

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raju Pundlik Baviskar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dilip Shriram Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mauli Doodh Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pandharechi Wadi Thr Chairman Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajaram Nivruti Duve Vs the State of Mah and Ors.