Allowed

Bhagabai Machindra Khade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Mar 2014WP/2181/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Land Acquisition Officer erred in law by neglecting to extend statutory benefits under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court allowed the writ petition, directed calculation and payment of benefits by respondents, and set an eight-month deadline.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners declared entitled to Section 34 benefits; Land Acquisition Officer to calculate amount; Respondents directed to pay within eight months.

Bhagabai Machindra Khade and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp218113.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2181 OF 2013

¶5

1 Bhagabai w/o Machindra Khade, age: 57 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Nagzari, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed.

¶6

2 Sangita d/o Dattatraya Wagh, age: 34 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Nagzari, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed, At present R/o Kalam, Tq. Kalam, District Osmanabad.

¶7

3 Satish s/o Uttreshwar Jadhavar, age: 46 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Nagzari, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed.

¶8

4 Alka w/o Satish Jadhavar, age: 42 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Nagzari, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed.

¶9

5 Shanta w/o Bapurao Dhas, age: 58 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Nagzari, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed.

¶10

6 Pandurang s/o Kondiba Sanap, age: 60 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Nagzari, Tq.Kaij, Dist.Beed.

¶11

7 Dilip s/o Kondiba Sanap (died), through L.R. Kondiba s/o Bpurao Sanap, age: 82 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Soutada, Tq. Patoda, District Beed.

¶12

8 Uttareshwar s/o Namdeorao Jadhavar,

¶13

{2}

¶14

wp218113.odt

¶15

age: 70 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Nagzari, Tq. Kaij, Dist.Beed, At present Kalam, Tq. Kalam, District Osmanabad. Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 The State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶18

2 The Secretary, Planning and E.G.S. Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶19

3 The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

¶20

4 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed.

¶21

5 The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy Collector) No.1, Ambajogai, Now Head Quarter at Ambajogai, District Beed.

¶22

6 The Executive Engineer,

¶23

Jaikwadi Irrigation Division No.3, Beed, District Beed.

¶24

Respondents

¶25

Mr.N.P.Bangar, advocate for the petitioners Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5. Respondent No.6, though served, remained absent.

¶26

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶27

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE :25th March, 2014

¶28

wp218113.odt

¶29

{3}

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

¶31

1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5. Respondent No.6, though served, remained absent.

¶32

2 The petitioners are making grievance in respect of failure of the Respondents to extend benefits under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act while passing award under Section 28 of the Act on 18.04.2012.

¶33

3 It is not disputed that the land belonging to the petitioners has been taken in possession on 20.12.2000 by entering into private negotiations. The acquisition proceedings were initiated with issuance of Section 4 Notification on 29.03.2001 and award came to be passed on 15.01.2003. The claimants, aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, approached the Reference Court by filing Reference Application, which came to be allowed on 18.08.2010 and amount of compensation was directed to be enhanced. On the basis of the decision in the Reference Application, petitioners herein tendered an application under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was decided by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.04.2012. The grievance of the petitioners is that although the Reference Court,

¶34

{4}

¶35

wp218113.odt

¶36

while delivering award in the Reference Application, which is the basis for tender application under Section 28 by the petitioners, directed to pay benefits under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Land Acquisition Officer failed to extent benefits to the petitioners under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶37

4 It does appear that under the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15.01.2003, benefits under Section 34 of the Act were not extended to the claimants. The statutory benefits receivable by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act are required to be granted. The Land Acquisition Officer, while taking decision on the application under Section 28A of the Act, has committed an error in law by not considering claim of the petitioners for grant of benefits under Section 34 of the Act.

¶38

5 The learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to justify the action of the Land Acquisition Officer contending that the petitioners are entitled to receive rental compensation under the State policy and as such, are not entitled to claim benefits under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The submission putforth by the learned A.G.P. is devoid of merits.

¶39

6 The petitioners have made a statement that they have not presented an application seeking benefits under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶40

wp218113.odt

¶41

{5}

¶42

7 In this view of the matter, writ petition deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. The petitioners are declared entitled to receive benefits under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, in view of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15.01.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to calculate the amount and Respondents No.1 to 6 are directed to pay the same to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight months from today.

¶43

8 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

R.M.BORDE

¶45

A.M. BADAR R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶46

adb/wp218113

Bhagabai Machindra Khade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagabai Machindra Khade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Chandrakant Uttam Sapkale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dr. Rekha Bhagwat Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramila Vishwanath Bankar Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Vishnu Uttamrao Kondamandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Secondary Ashram School, Chavanwadi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Nivrutti Waghmare Vs the Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and Anr.