Partly allowed

Gulab S/O Ramkrushna Jivtode and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Dept. of Irrigation Mantralay Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2013WP/456/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act could not be dismissed merely because rehabilitation compensation was sanctioned but not actually paid. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter remanded to the Deputy Collector to decide the application within two months, noting no entitlement to interim interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Deputy Collector to decide application under Section 28-A within two months; no interest awarded.

Gulab S/O Ramkrushna Jivtode and Ors. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

/1/

¶2

wp456-13.order

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 456 of 2013.

¶5

Gulab Ramkrushna Jivtode and others.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Mah. Through its Department of Irrigation and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr. K.R. Lambat counsel for the petitioners. Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, AGP for respondents.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 21st February, 2013.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the Deputy Collector ( Land Acquisition), Nagpur on 7.12.2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners on 1.7.2005 under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation.

¶13

About 1.84 HR of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for public utility under the Lower Vena Project. An Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.7.1994. Though some of the other agriculturists had challenged the Award, the petitioners did not file any reference and did not challenge the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation to the petitioners @ Rs.18,000/- per hector. However, the reference applications filed by some of the other villagers were allowed and the Reference Court was pleased to grant compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per hector in Land Acquisition Case No.303/1994 on 24.12.2004. The petitioners immediately applied for the certified copy of the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 303/1994 on 18.3.2005 and filed

¶14

/2/

¶15

wp456-13.order

¶16

the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 6.9.2005 immediately on receiving the certified copy. The application filed by the petitioners was, however, rejected by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Nagpur, on the ground that the petitioners had submitted an application on 21.9.1997 for seeking rehabilitation compensation and total compensation of Rs.24,830/- was granted to the petitioners and others.

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, it appears that the Deputy Collector ( Land Acquisition) was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the petitioners had sought for rehabilitation compensation and the petitioners were granted rehabilitation compensation of Rs.24,830/-, along with certain other landholders. No doubt, the petitioners had sought for rehabilitation compensation and an amount of Rs.24,830/was sanctioned by the government towards compensation for petitioners and three others. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have not received the rehabilitation compensation till date and it is also not disputed by the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader that though the amount was sanctioned, the petitioners were not actually paid the amount. In the aforesaid backdrop, the application filed by the petitioners under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act could not have been dismissed on the ground that they had sought rehabilitation compensation and the same was paid to them.

¶18

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) is quashed and set aside.

¶19

/3/

¶20

wp456-13.order

¶21

The matter is remanded to the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) for considering the application filed by the petitioners under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Deputy Collector to consider if the said application is filed within the prescribed period of limitation and decide the same in accordance of law. Even if the application under section 28-A of the Act is found to be in order, the petitioners would not be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners from 1.7.2005 till the matter is decided by the Deputy Collector, as the petitioners have not approached this court within a short time after they had filed the application under section 28-A of the Act. The Deputy Collector is directed to decide the application within a period of two months. No order as to costs.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Hirekhan

Gulab S/O Ramkrushna Jivtode and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Dept. of Irrigation Mantralay Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab S/O Ramkrushna Jivtode and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Dept. of Irrigation Mantralay Mumbai 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

Priti W/O Devendra Rangashahi Vs Devendra Ramaswami Rangashahi and Another

Prashant S/O Shankarrao Meshram Vs Smt. Shweta W/O Prashant Meshram and Anr.

Municipal Council Daryapur through Chief Officer Vs Ravishankar S/O Ramkrushna Ganeshpure and Another

Smt. Chhaya Wd/O Ratansigh Chauhan Vs Shri. Subramaniyam Deosthan Sangam Thr. Its Secretary Govind S/O Kannappa Mudliar

Shri. Lokmitra S/O Bondku Sontakke Vs the Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur and Anr.

Mah.State Road Transport Corpn.Yavatmal Vs Syed Rafutulla Kudratullaha Kazi and Another.