Allowed

Kamalabai Dattray Thorat v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2014WP/2636/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to release compensation to the petitioner-owner of acquired land within eight weeks, conditioned upon furnishing an indemnity bond to protect the State against third-party claims, overriding an entry declaring the purchase illegal.

What did the court decide?

The Symorphism Land Acquisition Officer directed to release compensation within 8 weeks subject to the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond.

Kamalabai Dattray Thorat Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2010

Kamalabai D. Thorat

.. Petitioner

v/s.

Special Land Acquisition Officer

¶7

& Others ..Respondent/s

¶8

Mr.Vinod Sangvikar i/b. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Godbole AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 Mr.sarthak Diwan i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for the Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA &

¶10

M.S.SONAK JJ.

¶11

DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2014

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. Considering the nature of dispute involved in the petition, the petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner was claiming to be the owner of plot no.67 admeasuring 518.30 sq.mt. Out of Survey No.912/1/2/3 situated at Nashik, Taluka and District Nashik. The acquisition of the said plot was made for

¶15

the benefit of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of

¶16

pps 1/4

¶17

Maharashtra Limited. Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the said Act”) was made by which certain compensation was offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶18

The petitioner was required to approach this Court as the compensation was not released to her.

¶19

There is a reply filed by Pundlik Aamruta Gaikwad, Special Land Acquisition Officer, CIDCO Nashik, District Nashik. From the perusal of the reply and in particular clause (a) of paragraph 5 thereof, it appears that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the acquired land. On the basis of the acquisition proceeding, the possession of acquired land has been taken on 27^th April, 1982 and the award under Section 11 has been made on 17^th February, 1986. In clause (b) of paragraph 5 of the reply, it is stated that an entry has been made in the 7/12 extract in relation to the acquired land that the transaction by which the petitioner acquired the land was illegal. It is pointed out that by a letter dated 19^th January, 1980, the first respondent Land Acquisition Officer called upon the petitioner to get the said entry deleted and to receive the compensation thereupon. It is pointed out that as necessary compliance was not done by the petitioner, the amount has not been released. The submission of the learned Counsel

¶20

pps 2/4

¶21

appearing for the petitioner is that the remark was subsequently ordered to be deleted.

¶22

We have perused the award under Section 11. The award does not record that there is any rival claim in so far as the land claimed by the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner is relying upon the registered sale deed dated 25^th May, 1966 executed in her favour by Kondaji Bhikaji Jaybhai and others. Even in the reply, it has not been disputed that the land in question has been taken over from the petitioner. The only ground for denying the compensation to the petitioner is the entry in the 7/12 extract which records that the transaction of purchase by the petitioner was illegal. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts, and especially the fact that even according to the case of the first respondent, there is no rival claim, the compensation amount payable under the award will have to be released to the petitioner. However, the petitioner will have to submit an indemnity bond for the amount received by her which will protect the respondents in the event any claim is made by any third party. We must make a note here that under the proviso to sub sec. (2) of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is specifically provided that even if the amount of compensation payable under an award under Section 11 is received by a

¶23

pps 3/4

¶24

person, the liability of such a person to pay to the person lawfully entitled thereto is not affected. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing following order:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i) We direct the first respondent to release the compensation payable under the award made under Section 11 of the said Act in relation to the land, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the petition to the petitioner, within a period of 8 weeks from today.

¶27

ii) Before accepting the compensation, the petitioner will have to furnish an indemnity bond.

¶28

iii)Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶29

pps 4/4

Kamalabai Dattray Thorat v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalabai Dattray Thorat v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 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

Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Sandesh Hawaldar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Bhairu Shankar Jadhav, through Constituted Attorney, Shri. Sahadev Shankar Jadhav Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Uday Purushottam Wadadekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector Ratnagiri and Ors.

Uday Purushottam Wadadekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector Ratnagiri and Ors.

The Collector, Collector Office, Alibag and Anr. Vs Jamrutkhar Gramastha Mandal through Shri. Janardan Hari Nakti and Anr.