Allowed

Smt. Venubai Chaturbhuj Nagtilik v. the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2014WP/6828/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting a petitioner's compensation application on technical grounds. The court held that the requirement to produce only a certified copy of the Section 18 award, directing restoration and an enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application on technical grounds is quashed; the case is restored for enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer within six months.

Smt. Venubai Chaturbhuj Nagtilik Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-6828.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6828 OF 2013

¶5

Smt. Venubai Chaturbhuj Garad. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri G.N. Salunke i/by Shri Umesh Kurund for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

¶10

learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Considering the nature of controversy involved in this Petition, notice for final disposal to the Respondent No.4, which is alleged to be the acquiring body, is dispensed with. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶11

An Application was made by the Petitioner under Sub section (1) of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the said Act”), seeking redetermination of amount of compensation on the basis of the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Barshi, in a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned order dated 7th December 2012, the Application has been rejected by the 2nd Respondent only on

ash

wp-6828.13

the ground of failure of the Petitioner to comply with technical requirement of producing the following documents:

¶16

(1) 7/12 and 8 extracts of the acquired land;

¶17

(2) Certified copy of the award in a reference under Section 18 of the said Act ;

¶18

(3) Certified copies of the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act;

¶19

(4) A Letter by the State Government and or by the Government Pleader stating whether any Appeal has been preferred by the State Government in the High Court against the judgment and award under Section 18 of the said Act;

¶20

(5) Bank guarantee of the amount of enhancement sought by way of Application;

¶21

(6) Documentary evidence to show that

¶22

redetermination of amount of compensation is necessary;

ash

wp-6828.13

(7) Documentary evidence to show that the reasons recorded in the judgment and award under Section 18 of the said Act will apply to the acquired land.

¶27

It is not necessary for us to record detailed reasons for

¶28

coming to the conclusion that except the second requirement, the Petitioner was under no obligation to produce the documents along with the application under subsection (1) of Section 2A of the said Act. As far as the item Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, if the Application under subsection (1) of Section 28A of the said Act is otherwise maintainable, subsection (2) contemplates an enquiry to be held by the Collector. At the time of enquiry, the Petitioner/Claimant will have to produce the documentary evidence, if any, in support of the prayer for redetermination of the compensation. The only lawful requirement which is set out is of production of a certified copy of the judgment and award passed under Section 18 of the said Act on the basis of which the Application for redetermination is made. The Application made by the Petitioner could not have been rejected on such technical grounds and that too without giving a reasonable time to the Petitioner to comply with the procedural requirements.

ash

wp-6828.13

Hence, the impugned order will have to be set aside and the Petition is disposed of by passing the following order :

¶33

ORDER :

¶34

(a) The impugned order dated 7th December 2012 is quashed and set aside. The Application made by the Petitioner under subsection (1) of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is restored to the file of the 2nd Respondent;

¶35

(b) We direct the Petitioner to appear before the concerned Land Acquisition officer before whom the Application was filed, on 10th March 2014 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioner shall produce an authenticated copy of this order. If the Petitioner has not produced the certified copy of the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No.5 of 2004, it will be open for the Petitioner to produce the same within a period of six weeks from today;

¶36

(c) We make it clear that the concerned Land Acquisition Officer shall not insist on compliance with any of the requirements set out in the

ash

wp-6828.13

impugned order dated 7th December 2012, save and except the requirement of production of the certified copy of the judgment and award as aforesaid;

¶41

(d) If the Application made by the Petitioner is otherwise maintainable, the Land Acquisition Officer shall proceed to hold an enquiry, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the acquiring body;

¶42

(e) The Land Acquisition Officer shall endeavour to dispose of the pending Application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date fixed for appearance of the Petitioner;

¶43

(f) All the contentions of the parties in the Application are kept open;

¶44

(g) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

Smt. Venubai Chaturbhuj Nagtilik v. the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Venubai Chaturbhuj Nagtilik v. the State of Maharashtra, through District Collector, Solapur 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

Gayaji Subhaji Bhosale (Decd) and Ors. Vs Mrs. Chitra Pratapsinh Bhosale and Ors.

Shri. Nandkumar Vasant Deshpande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Mr. Ratan Manoranjan Uma Bose Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Shamrao Jinnappa Gaikwad Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri. Anil Appasaheb Desai Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Swapnil Sagar Vs Rachna Swapnil Sagar