Partly allowed

M/S. Devi Construction Company through Its Partner, Shri. Vinod Baney v. the Municipal Corporation, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2014WP/2585/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that possession of the petitioner's land was taken by the Municipal Corporation without a valid agreement under Section 126 of the MRTA. The High Court directed the Corporation to initiate acquisition proceedings within two years and pay interim compensation based on the ready reckoner within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed acquisition within two years; awarded interim compensation calculated as per ready reckoner within four months.

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The second respondent is not a necessary party. On 30th June 2014, the parties were put to notice that the petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

2The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land more particularly described in paragraph 2A of the petition. The grievance in the petition is that without following due process of law, the first respondent-Municipal Corporation has taken over a part of the said land of the petitioner for widening of a road. Reliance is placed on the correspondence between the parties and in particular the letter dated 22nd March 2013 addressed by the first respondent requesting the petitioner to hand

3There is a reply filed by Shri Pramod Shankar Nirbhawane, Additional City Engineer (Roads), Pune Municipal Corporation in which it is contended that the work at the site was commenced on 5th March 2013 and was going on for 8 months and 15 days. The contention is that the representative of the petitioner (Mr.Maicheal) and the Advocate for the petitioner (Advocate Rema) orally consented for the commencement of the construction of the road on the said land of the petitioner. It is contended that the Pune Municipal Corporation had sent the proforma of the consent letter to the petitioner to enable him to submit the letter for the purposes of payment of compensation by an agreement in terms of additional FSI/TDR/cash component. In paragraph 8, it is stated that the Municipal Corporation was already ready and willing to pay the compensation to the petitioner by an agreement so that the lengthy process of acquisition can be curtailed. A statement without prejudice is made in paragraph 8 of the reply which reads thus:

“8....Without admitting any allegation and without prejudice to all the contentions raised herein above, I respectfully submits that Pune Municipal Corporation is also submitting to the orders of Hon'ble Court

4Thus, there does not seem to be any dispute that on a part of the said land of the petitioner described in paragraph 2A of the petition, the Municipal Corporation has carried out construction of a road. Admittedly, there is no agreement in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not interested in obtaining TDR/FSI in relation to the land taken over for road widening. His submission is that the compensation in accordance with law of the compulsory acquisition be paid to the petitioner.

5As indicated above and as is clear from the affidavit-in-replyfiledbytheMunicipal Corporation, the land of the petitioner was put to use by the Municipal Corporation by taking over the possession thereof. There is nothing on record to show that there was an express consent granted by the petitioner to allow the Municipal Corporation to start construction of the road on the land described in paragraph 2A of the petition. Even according to the case of the Municipal Corporation, the possession was taken over by the Corporation on 5th March 2013 and construction was commenced.

6Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner of issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to initiate acquisition proceedings in accordance with law will have to be granted. The petitioner has been deprived of his land from 5th March 2013. The acquisition proceedings may not be concluded within a reasonable time. Therefore, we propose to direct the Municipal Corporation to assess the market value of the land taken over from the petitioner as on 5th March 2013 as per the prevailing ready reckoner and to pay the said amount to the petitioner by way of interim compensation. We propose to grant time of 4 months to pay the interim compensation to the petitioner.

(I)We direct the first respondent-Municipal Corporation to take steps for acquisition of the land taken over from the petitioner on 5th March 2013 for the purposes of road widening. The first respondent Corporation shall ensure that the acquisition proceedings are initiated and are concluded within a period of two years from today;

(II)The first respondent-Corporation shall determine the market value of the land taken over from the petitioner as on 5th March 2013 in accordance with the then prevailing ready reckoner. The said amount of market value shall be paid by the Corporation to the

petitioner within a period of four months from today. The amount shall be by way of interim compensation which will be subject to final Award which will be passed in the land acquisition proceedings;

M/S. Devi Construction Company through Its Partner, Shri. Vinod Baney v. the Municipal Corporation, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Devi Construction Company through Its Partner, Shri. Vinod Baney v. the Municipal Corporation, Pune 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

Kiran Raghunath Kamble and Anr. Vs Chief Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.

Kiran Raghunath Kamble and Anr. Vs Chief Election Commission, through Chief Election Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Sampat Raghunath Kamble and Ors. Vs Shri. Sunil Ashok Sutar and Anr.

Ashok Bajirao Khade and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Rohini Raju Khamkar Vs Raju Ranba Khamkar

Vishwanath Dagadu Kothule and Ors. Vs Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.