Partly allowed

Bhatesing Gajesing Girase v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.P. Dhule and Others

Bombay HC25 Jul 2014WP/3929/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that under Sections 29 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, strangers must first lodge a claim with the Collector before approaching the Civil Court. Since the Executing Court permitted impleadment without considering this statutory bar, the order was quashed and remanded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26th February 2013 permitting impleadment was set aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court for rehearing.

Bhatesing Gajesing Girase Vs the Special Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P. No.3929/13

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3929 OF 2013

¶5

Bhate Age : r/o Di Dist.	sing Gajesing Girase, 58 years, Occ.Agri., vi, Tq. Shindkheda, Dhule	..PETITIONER
	VERSUS
1.	The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.P. Dhule, Collector Office, Dhule
2.	The Executive Engineer No.1, Dhule, Sinchan Bhawan, Sakri Road, Dhule
3.	Ranjit s/o Gajesing Girase, Age : 52 years, Occ. Agri.,
4.	Dharamsing Gajesing Girase, Age : 50 years, Occ. Agri.,
5.	Padamsing Gajesing Girase, Age : 54 years, Occ. Agri.,
	Respondent Nos.3 to 5 R/o at Divi, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule
6.	Sau. Kamlabai Bhatesing Girase, Age : 56 years, Occ. Household, R/o Chilane, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule	..RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr R.C. Patil, Advocate for petitioner; Mr D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr D.A. Naik, Advocate for respondents no.3 & 4; Mr S.P. Tiwari, Advocate for respondents no.5 & 6

¶7

(2) W.P. No.3929/13

¶8

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 25th July, 2014

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

The petitioner, claiming to be owner of agricultural land bearing Gat No.146, ad measuring 6 Hectares 79 Rs, situated at village Divi, Taluka Shindkheda, District Dhule, has questioned the order passed by the Executing Court, whereby the Executing Court has permitted impleadment of respondents no.3 and 4 as parties in the Regular Darkhast. The order to that effect came to be passed on 26^th February, 2013, upon an application moved by respondents no.3 and 4.

¶12

The Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, upon a Reference made to it, by judgment dated 3^rd January, 2012, has decided Reference No.20 of 2010.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Reference is answered at the behest of petitioner and respondents no.3 and 4 who are strangers are not authorized in law to step into the execution proceedings when the proceedings were ripe for issuing orders in favour of the petitioner, i.e. release of the compensation towards acquisition of land. Learned Counsel submits that rights, if any, of respondents no.3

¶14

(3)

¶15

W.P. No.3929/13

¶16

and 4, are required to be tested in a separate suit and not in the present proceedings. He submits that sections 29 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act do not confer such right either in respondents no.3 and 4, or the learned Executing Court, to grant such application.

¶17

In support of his contentions, he has relied on the judgments of this Court in the matter of Machindra s/o Santaram Kutwad vs. Sharad s/o Khanderao Survase & ors. , reported in 2012 (6) Mh.L.J. 688 and in the matter of Govind Narayan Lotlikar vs. Savitribai Raghuvira Lotlikar & ors. , reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 844 .

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the submission made by him finds support from the law laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments and has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26^th February, 2013 permitting impleadment of respondents no.3 and 4 as parties in the Regular Darkhast.

¶19

The above referred submissions are objected by respondents no.3 and 4 by inviting attention of this Court to the status of the present petitioner in the Reference preferred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the learned Counsel for respondents no.3 and 4, the Reference was preferred by the petitioner in the capacity of power of attorney holder of respondents no.3 and 4 and the amount of

¶20

(4) W.P. No.3929/13

¶21

compensation as is ordered to be paid by the acquiring body is sought to be claimed by the petitioner alone, though respondents no.3 and 4 hold substantial interest in the same.

¶22

Learned Counsel for respondents no.3 and 4 prays for dismissal of the writ petition as, according to him, the learned Executing Court shall look into the rights of the parties as regards apportionment of the compensation.

¶23

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the right of the present respondents no.3 and 4, if is tested in the light of provisions of sections 29 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is noticed that they are required to lodge such claim before the Collector, who in turn is required to refer the same to the Civil Court for the purpose of adjudication. In the present case, respondents no.3 and 4, in their individual capacity, have sought to be impleaded as parties in the Regular Darkhast. While granting the application by order dated 26th February, 2013, the aforesaid provisions of law, i.e. section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by this Court in the matters of Machindra and Govind (cited supra) was not brought to the notice of the Executing Court.

¶24

W.P. No.3929/13

¶25

(5)

¶26

In view of above, I am of the opinion that the case for remand after quashing the impugned order is made out.

¶27

In the light of above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 26th February, 2013, passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule, below Exh.12, in Special Darkhast No.40 of 2012, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court.

¶28

The 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule or the Court dealing with the Special Darkhast No.40 of 2012, is directed to rehear the petitioner, in view of the law cited above.

¶29

Writ Petition allowed in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶30

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶31

amj

Bhatesing Gajesing Girase v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.P. Dhule and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhatesing Gajesing Girase v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.P. Dhule and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaising Kishanrao Bhadre Vs Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C. Ltd. Beed

Divisional Controller M.S.R.T.C Beed Divn.Beed Vs Jaisingh Kishanrao Bhadre

Shirishkumar Mukundrao Deo Vs Ashwinikumar Mukundrao Deo and Another

Bhila Raghunath Jadhav (Vanjari) Died through Lrs. Indal Bhila Vanjari and Others Vs Harji Chainsingh Vanjari (Jadhav) through Lrs. and Another

Sharad Prabhakarrao Pandav Vs Subhash Ramchandra Deshmukh and Anr.

Chandar Ganpati Salunke Vs Pankaj Dnyandeo Daware and Others