Disposed

Sk. Fakir Sk. Dadabhai and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Nov 2014WP/2292/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 2292 of 2014, the High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act became redundant after the 2013 Act commenced. Directing respondents to determine compensation under Section 28(1)(a) of the 2013 Act within eight weeks, the Court kept the issue of rental compensation open.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to determine compensation under Section 28(1)(a) of 2013 Act within eight weeks; issue of rental compensation kept open.

Sk. Fakir Sk. Dadabhai and Another Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) W.P. No. 2292 of 2014

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 2292 of 2014

¶4

Sk. Fakir Sk. Dadabhai, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶5

Dagubai Namdeo Pinjare, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

¶6

Both R/o. Nadi, Taluka : Vaijapur, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Employment Guarantee Scheme Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶9

The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad.

¶10

The Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), Krushna Khore Vikas Mahamandal, Collector Office, Aurangabad.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation (Local Sector), Aurangabad.

¶12

.. Respondents.

¶13

Mr. N.J. Pahune Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. Ganesh V. Shinde, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶14

(2) W.P. No. 2292 of 2014

¶15

Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶16

Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate, for respondent no.4.

¶17

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶18

DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER 2014

¶19

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶20

Heard Adv. Mr. N.J. Pahune Patil for the petitioners, learned AGP Mrs. M.A. Deshpande for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. U.B. Bondar for respondent no.4.

¶21

The facts are not in dispute. Possession of land of the petitioner was taken in 2004. Initially, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 15-11-2006. Those proceedings lapsed and on 13-8-2012, new notification under Section 4 of the very same Act was published.

¶22

Present petition has been filed on 26-2-2014, with a grievance that after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Re-settlement Act, 2013 [For short, hereinafter referred to as "2013 Act"] , the earlier land acquisition proceedings lapsed. Adv. Mr. Pahune Patil also submits that the petitioners have not been paid any rental compensation from 2004 till

¶23

(3) W.P. No. 2292 of 2014

¶24

date.

¶25

The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the proceedings with respondent nos.1 to 3 are now at the stage of award and award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act shall be published shortly.

¶26

Adv. Mr. Bondar on behalf of respondent no.4 adopts the same line of arguments.

¶27

Provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 Act are very clear. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, became redundant and the compensation is required to be determined in terms of 2013 Act, if award under Section 11 is not made. Here, admittedly, such award has not been made. As such, the respondents have to look into the provisions of 2013 Act, to determine compensation payable to the petitioners.

¶28

Similarly, for paying compensation to the petitioners, in terms of Government policy, for loss of possession in 2004, the respondents have to take suitable decision. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is seeking time to find out whether after 2013 Act, need to pay rental compensation survives or then, compensation can be paid under that Act, even for loss of possession in 2004. We keep the issue open.

¶29

The respondents shall look into the provisions of Section 28(1)(a) of 2013 Act, while determining compensation payable to the petitioners. Similarly, their entitlement to receive rental compensation

¶30

(4) W.P. No. 2292 of 2014

¶31

shall also be examined in accordance with law, simultaneously.

¶32

Compensation payable to the petitioners, under Section 28(1) (a) of 2013 Act shall be determined within a period of eight weeks from today. Similarly, if rental compensation is payable to the petitioners separately, decision about it shall be reached by the competent authority within the same time.

¶33

With these directions, and keeping all rival contentions, including entitlement of the petitioners to receive rental compensation, open, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.

¶34

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

puranik / WP2292.14

Sk. Fakir Sk. Dadabhai and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Fakir Sk. Dadabhai and Another 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

Sabera Begum Mohammed Azim Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vaijinath Manik Sable and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Padmaji Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nitin Pandit Sagat Vs Ribeka Nitin Sagat