Dismissed

Wamanrao Maruti Sasawade and Anr. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No. 22, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2013WP/2086/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an acquisition award, arguing land was outside the benefited zone and statutory sections were not followed. The Court relied on precedents validating acquisition of land outside the benefited zone and the retrospective validation of non-compliance, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Respondents were directed to take possession of the land forthwith.

Wamanrao Maruti Sasawade and Anr. Vs the Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/7

¶2

(WP2086.13)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2086 OF 2013

¶4

Wamanrao Maruti Sasawade and Anr.

¶5

…. Petitioners.

¶6

V/s

¶7

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

¶8

….. Respondents.

¶9

Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.P. Thakkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶10

CORAM: V. M. KANADE & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.

¶11

DATE: 25^th July, 2013

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order and direction for setting aside and quashing the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (“SLAO”) dated 06/05/1991 and 31/03/1992 with a further direction to the Divisional Commissioner to delete the land of the Petitioners from acquisition.

¶14

Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:-

¶15

2/7

¶16

(WP2086.13)

¶17

Petitioners are owners of land bearing old Gat No. 1855 (new Gat No.1380). An award was passed by the SLAO, Pune whereby land of the Petitioners admeasuring 1 Hectare 20 Ares bearing old Gat No.1855 (New Gat No.1380) was acquired. The contention of the Petitioners is that the said land does not fall under the benefited zone and, therefore, the SLAO could not have acquired the said land. It is submitted that an application was made under the Right to Information Act and the Petitioners were informed that the said land does not fall under the benefited zone. It is, therefore, submitted that the Divisional Commissioner may be directed to withdraw the acquisition in respondent of the said land belonging to the Petitioners. It is submitted that, initially, Petitioners had filed Writ Petition vide Writ Petition No. 7140 of 2011. However, the said Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioners to pursue the representation dated 22/07/2011. Petitioners accordingly pursued the the said representation. It is submitted that the said representation is not yet decided. It is submitted that other persons who are similarly situated had also filed Writ Petition No.3846 of 2012 and 3847 of 2012 and in the said Writ Petitions directions were give to decide the representations of the said persons after taking a spot inspection. It is submitted that case of the Petitioners is similar to the Petitioners in the said Writ Petitions. This

¶18

3/7

¶19

(WP2086.13)

¶20

Petition, thereafter, was amended and further grounds were raised that steps mentioned in sections 13 to 15 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 were not followed and, as such, on account of the said mandatory provisions not being followed, the entire acquisition is bad in law.

¶21

The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no substance in the said submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. It is submitted that Division Bench of this Court in Shivgonda Balgonda Patil and Others vs. The Director of Resettlement and Others¹ has in terms held that even the lands which are not confined to the lands acquired from the benefited zone, can be used for this purpose. He has further submitted that after the judgment of the Full Bench was delivered in Gulab Shankar Walve vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer² , the State of Maharashtra issued the Maharastra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 (Maharashtra Act No.13 of 1985) [For short “Amendment and Validation Act, 1985”] and validated with retrospective effect all acts/actions where no steps were taken as required under sections 13 to 15 of the said Act with retrospective effect. He further submitted that the Amendment and Validation Act, 1985 was

¶22

1 AIR 1992 Bombay 72(1)

¶23

2 AIR 1982 Bom 300

¶24

4/7

¶25

(WP2086.13)

¶26

challenged in Writ Petitions and the Division Bench of this Court in Dhulgonda Dada Patil vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer¹ was pleased to confirm the validity of the said Amendment and Validation Act, 1985. It is submitted that, therefore, the said submissions made by the Petitioners of non-observance of provisions of sections 13 to 15 of the said Act are without any substance.

¶27

Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: R.M. Borde & U.D. Salvi, JJ.) dated 9/1/2013 passed in Writ Petition No.9700 of 2010. He submitted that, in the said case, Division Bench of this Court on similar grounds has set aside the Award which was passed.

¶28

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondents. In our view, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. The first submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the land which does not fall under the benefited zone cannot be acquired for resettlement of project affected persons. This question has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in Shivgonda Balgonda² (supra) and after taking into

¶29

1 AIR 1989 Bom 286

¶30

2 AIR 1992 Bombay 72(1)

¶31

5/7

¶32

(WP2086.13)

¶33

consideration various provisions of the said Act, Division Bench in para 5 has observed as under:-

¶34

“5...............“Thus, the list of lands available for resettlement of displaced persons is very wide. It is not confined only to the land acquired from the benefitted zone of the Project concerned. Clearly, even land outside the benefitted zone can also be used for this purpose. In fact, under Section 10 an obligation is cast on the State Government to resettle as many displaced persons as possible on lands in the benefitted zone or in other villages or areas which may be specified by the State Government by an order in writing. There is nothing in these provisions to indicate that the lands in the benefitted zone which are referred to, are confined only to the benefitted zone of the concerned project. In fact that definition of “displaced person” also makes it clear that it covers all persons who have been displaced from land on account of acquisition of their land in the effected zone. Sec. 2(7) defines “displaced person” to mean “any occupant who on account of the acquisition of his land in the affected zone …... for the purposes of a project has been displaced from such land........”. This definition also does not in any way suggest that a displaced person's right of resettlement is confined to the lands benefitted by any particular project.”

¶35

This question is, therefore, no longer res integra and it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that it is

¶36

6/7

¶37

(WP2086.13)

¶38

permissible for the State to acquire the land which is not falling under the benefited zone for the purpose of resettlement of project affected persons.

¶39

So far as non-compliance of sections 13 to 15 of the said Act is concerned, after the judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Gulab Shankar Walve¹ (supra), the State of Maharashtra has issued the said Amendment and Validation Act, 1985, validating all actions which have been taken by the Government which included non-compliance of the provisions of sections 13 to 15 with retrospective effect. In the Amendment and Validation Act, 1985, it has been clarified that even if the provisions of sections 13 to 15 are not followed, that cannot be taken as a ground for setting aside the Award which has been passed by the SLAO. Division Bench of this Court in Dhulgonda Dada Patil² (supra) has upheld the validity of the Amendment and Validation Act, 1985. In view of this, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. It appears that these facts were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench (Coram:R.M. Borde & U.D. Salvi, JJ.) which delivered the judgment dated 9/1/2013 in Writ Petition No.9700 of 2010 on which the reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶40

1 AIR 1982 Bom 300

¶41

2 AIR 1989 Bom 286

¶42

7/7

¶43

(WP2086.13)

¶44

The land of the Petitioners was acquired in 1991. The Award was passed and some how on one pretext or the other Petitioners have filed Petitions after Petitions in this Court and have deprived the project affected person from getting benefit of this land. Petitioners have used every possible trick in the book to prolong the allotment of land to the project affected person. Thus, by their conduct, they have made the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 otiose and redundant. Hence, in our view, it is not necessary to give directions to the Divisional Commissioner to again take spot inspection and decide the representation of the Petitioners.

¶45

Writ Petition is dismissed. Respondents are directed to take possession of the land in question forthwith.

¶46

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶47

B.D. Pandit PS

Wamanrao Maruti Sasawade and Anr. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No. 22, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wamanrao Maruti Sasawade and Anr. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, No. 22, Pune 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

Shri. Anant Dharma Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Shantaram Lahane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept or Revenue and Ors.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, through Superintending Engineer Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Corporation and Textile and Ors.

Mr. Ramnath Kubar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Vistas Network Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai and Ors.