The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition by a petitioner's daughter seeking compensation for land acquired during her mother's lifetime. The court held the petition was an effort to reopen a dead controversy and did not interfere.
The petition was rejected and no costs were awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
WP 3048/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3048/2013
Muktabai w/o Namdeo Salunke,
age 70 yrs, occu.household,
r/o Ingale Galli, Osmanabad.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & five others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri P.R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6..
.....
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE: 19.09.2013
ORDER :
1] Heard.2] Learned Advocate Shri P.R. Patil for petitioner veryfairly stated that as assignments were going to change,
the earlier Bench did not pass adverse order to enable
petitioner - widow to place her case before the other
Bench.
3]Shri P.R. Patil submits that land belonging to
WP 3048/13
- 2 -
widowed mother of present petitioner was taken in
possession illegally in 1977. A protest was immediately
made and Government granted interim protection. That
protection was vacated in 1979. Thereafter during her
life time, the illiterate widow could not do anything.
She expired in 1984 and present petitioner is her married
but widowed daughter. He submits that situation of
present petitioner is not different than her mother and
hence leniency must be shown and an amount of
compensation due and payable in accordance with law must be directed to be paid. He is taking support from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & others V/s Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & others reported at (2013) 1 SCC 353 . He also states that in somewhat similar situation in Writ Petition No. 6358/2013, this Court has issued notice to respondents on 13.8.2013.
4]Learned AGP strongly opposes the petition. He
submits that the widowed mother had filed proceedings u/s
18 of the Land Acquisition Act to seek enhancement in
compensation of acquired land and those proceedings were
prosecuted in accordance with law. He, therefore, prays
WP 3048/13
- 3 -
for dismissal of the petition as the widow, during her
life time, did not initiate any civil case.
5]Advocate Shri P.R. Patil invites our attention to
paragraph no.12 of writ petition to show that proceedings
u/s 18 initiated by widow were dismissed as barred by
limitation.
6]The contents of the petition show that mother of
petitioner was aware of her legal rights. She initially
moved the Government pointing out that instead of
acquiring land Survey No.354/1, her land Survey No.354/2
was being acquired. Because of this grievance, the State
Government on 17.10.1977 granted stay and protected her
possession. After due verification on 4.7.1979, the
State Government appears to have vacated stay. Not only
this, the widowed mother had also approached the
competent Court for hike in compensation. In this
situation, it is difficult to presume any ignorance.
7]After 1979, the widow was very much available and
could have taken necessary steps till 1984. She expired
in 1984 and her daughter, now aged 70 years, has moved
this Court in the year 2013. Hence, even if we presume
that there were some valid grounds for widowed mother,
WP 3048/13
- 4 -
those grounds cannot come to the benefit of present
petitioner.
8]The complaint made in 1977 shows that instead of
acquiring a particular land, other land was acquired and
taken in possession. If that be the case, one fails to
understand how Section 18 proceedings were filed.
9]Insofar as order dated 13.8.2013 in Writ Petition
No.6358/2013 is concerned, this Court has only issued
notice in the matter. It is equally interesting to note
that the very same Bench has adjourned the matter of
present petitioner to enable to have it considered by the
next Bench.
10]We, therefore, find that the petition raises several
disputed questions and is also an effort to reopen a
controversy which is already dead.
11]We are not inclined to interfere in this situation
in the writ jurisdiction. The petition is rejected. No
costs.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
ndk/c199138
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition raises any disputed question justifying interference in writ jurisdiction to reopen a dead controversy regarding land acquisition compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muktabai w/o Namdeo Salunke
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. Dharmadhikari
Ravindra V. Ghuge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court