Dismissed

Bhagwan Tama Dange and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2014WP/2715/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition where petitioners sought an exchange of land already acquired for rehabilitation purposes. The Bench held that the State is not bound to accept an exchange proposal merely as a matter of right if the allotted project affected persons did not find the offered land acceptable, and the order was not liable to interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking deletion of acquisition order and exchange of land was rejected.

Bhagwan Tama Dange and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

wp2715.13.sxw

CPM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2715 OF 2013

¶6

Bhagwan Tama Dange & Ors.

¶7

...Petitioners.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

Mrs. Varsha Palav i/by the Laureate for the Petitioners. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the land which are more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the Petition. A notification dated 13 May 1977 was issued under section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (for short the “said Act of 1976”) in relation to the lands at Village Sakharale, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli. Under the said notification, the slab (holdings) of 8 Acres

¶14

1/5

¶15

2 wp2715.13.sxw

¶16

was fixed. The said lands of the Petitioners were notified for acquisition. An Application was made by the Petitioners by pointing out that an area of 132 Ares out Gat No. 485/1 and an area of 64 Ares out of Gat No. 396 have been acquired. In the Application dated 15 February 2008 addressed by the Petitioners to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, it was pointed out that the Petitioners were ready and willing to offer total area of 132 ares out of Gat No. 396 in addition to area of 64 ares which were already notified. Thus, in the Application it was prayed that Gat No. 485/1 be deleted from acquisition and the area of 132 Ares be taken over out of Gat No. 396. By the impugned order dated 11 September 2013, the said Application has been rejected by the District Collector (Deputy Director of Rehabilitation), Sangli.

¶17

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relied upon the provisions of the said Act of 1999 and in particular sub-section (1) of Section 19. She relied upon section 14 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short “the said Act of 1999”). She contended that under sub-section (1), the State Government has a power to enter into an agreement with any person for purchase or exchange of any land required for carrying out the purposes of the said Act of 1999. She

¶18

2/5

¶19

3 wp2715.13.sxw

¶20

relied upon the panchanama drawn of land bearing Gat No. 396 dated 16 August 2011. She urged that the Collector declined to exercise the power under section 14 only on the ground that the Project Affected Persons to whom an area of 82 Ares out of Gat No. 485 was allotted were not happy with the land offered out of Gat No. 396. Her submission is that the Collector declined to exercise statutory power on a ground which is not in existence. Only because the allottee did not like the land offered by the Petitioners, the Collector ought not have rejected the Application. She, therefore, submitted that the case of the Petitioners ought to have been considered by the State Government.

¶21

3 The State has filed an Affidavit-in-Reply of Ms Manisha A. Kumbhar, Deputy Collector (Resettlement) Officer, Sangli. It is contended that the acquired land to the extent of 50 Ares out of Gat No.485 has been granted to one Shri Pandurang Chandru Jadhav, a project affected person on 23^rd October 2001. It is pointed out that the remaining acquired land to the extent of 82 Ares out of Gat No. 485 has been granted to Shri Laxman Abhaji Jadhav on 24^th May 2012. It is pointed out that the total area of the acquired land was 1 Hectare 96 Ares out of which 1 Hectare 32 Ares has already been handed over to the project affected persons.

¶22

3/5

¶23

4 wp2715.13.sxw

¶24

We have perused sub-section (1) of section 14 of the said Act of 1999. It is a general power vested in the Commission or the Collector duly authorised in that behalf to acquire a land for carrying out the purposes of the Act 1979 by a private purchase or exchange with any person. Subsection (2) of section 14 provides that the Commissioner may for carrying out the purposes of the said Act of 1999 compulsorily acquire a land by taking recourse to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus there are two modes available to the State Government for taking over lands for carrying out purposes of the said Act of 1999. The first is under sub-section (1) to take over a land by a private sale or exchange and the second one is to take recourse to provisions of the law relating to compulsory acquisition. In the present case, a recourse has been taken to the compulsory acquisition, after following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After having taken a recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government is not bound to accept the proposal for exchange of land as a matter of right. We do not see any right in favour of the Petitioners to seek the exchange as a matter of right. In any event, from the impugned order, it appears that the request made by the Petitioners for exchange was considered on merits. The land of which release was sought by way of exchange has been already allotted to project affected persons. The portion

¶25

4/5

¶26

5 wp2715.13.sxw

¶27

of the land offered by the Petitioners by way of exchange was not acceptable to the allottees.

¶28

We do not see any case to interfere with the discretionary order in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶29

5/5

Bhagwan Tama Dange and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Tama Dange and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Mr. Arun Baburao Paritekar Vs Mr. Baburao Masoji Paritekar and Ors.

Mr. Arun Baburao Paritekar Vs Mr. Baburao Masoji Paritekar and Ors.

M/S. Mangesh Filteration, through Directors and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Finance Corporation and Anr.

Sandip Shrirang Waydande and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Rural Development and Ors.

Manjotra Jagindersingh Jaswant and Ors. Vs Saraswat Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Hanumant Baban Bhumkar and Ors. Vs the Collector, Pune and Ors.