The High Court dismissed a large set of writ petitions challenging land acquisition compensation orders due to gross delay and lack of bona fides. The petitioners had received compensation in 2005 only seeking relief in 2013.
Costs of Rs. 5,000/- charged to each petitioner payable to MIDC within 8 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp8348.13.sxw
1
CPM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8348 OF 2013
Hanuman Baban Bhumkar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8273 OF 2013
Dhanjay Vithoba Dhumal and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8274 OF 2013
Dnyanoba Ram Thakar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8275 OF 2013
Pandharinath Khandu Gawari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8276 OF 2013
Somnath Rambhau Sathe and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8277 OF 2013
Yashpal Ramlal Sabarwal and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
1/18
wp8348.13.sxw
2
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8278 OF 2013
Gulab Piraji Padale and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8279 OF 2013 Ramkrishna Baburao Kad and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8280 OF 2013 Malhari Rambhau Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8311 OF 2013
Baban G. Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8314 OF 2013
Shivaji Baban Godambe and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8316 OF 2013
Nivruti Dhondiba Ghogre and Ors. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others
..Petitioners.
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8318 OF 2013
2/18
wp8348.13.sxw
3
Baban Laxman Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8319 OF 2013 Maruti Laxman Sathe and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8320 OF 2013
Maruti Raghu Dhumal and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8321 OF 2013
Sahebrao Ganpat Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8322 OF 2013
Bhamabai Rajaram Wadkar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8323 OF 2013
Dnyanoba Shahadu Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8324 OF 2013
Dnyaneshwar Baban Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
3/18
wp8348.13.sxw
4
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8325 OF 2013
Vithabai Popat KKunjir and Ors. Vs.
..Petitioners.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8326 OF 2013
Balu Maruti Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8327 OF 2013
Sopan Raghu Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8328 OF 2013
Sopan Nathu Sawant and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8329 OF 2013
Balu Dagdu Thakar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8330 OF 2013
Khandu Bhau Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8331 OF 2013
4/18
5 wp8348.13.sxw
Eknath Babu Sutar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8332 OF 2013 Kaluram Pandurang Tupe and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8333 OF 2013 Chandrabhaga Baban Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8334 OF 2013 Vanabai Baban Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8335 OF 2013 Dnyaneshwar Babu Wadkar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8336 OF 2013 Shiva Shivram Thakar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8337 OF 2013 Kaluram Dattatraya Murkute and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
5/18
wp8348.13.sxw
6
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8340 OF 2013
Rohidas Dinkar Walhekar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others
..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8341 OF 2013
Tanaji Anand Lande and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8342 OF 2013
Moru Shankar Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners.
Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8343 OF 2013
Kalu Sakharam Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8344 OF 2013
Baban Vithoba Parkhi and Ors. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others
..Petitioners.
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8345 OF 2013
Namdev Dagdu Molak and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
6/18
wp8348.13.sxw
7
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8346 OF 2013
Ramdas Laxman Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8347 OF 2013
Kisan Damu Sawant and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8349 OF 2013
Kamlabai Mohan Gawari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8350 OF 2013
Sopan Namdev Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8351 OF 2013
Sanjay Dnyanoba Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8352 OF 2013
Kamlabai Sonu Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8353 OF 2013
7/18
8
wp8348.13.sxw
Nandu Narayan Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8354 OF 2013
Namdev Raghu Gawari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8355 OF 2013
PopanBansi Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8356 OF 2013
Parshuram Haribhau Sawant and Ors. ..Petitioners.
Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8358 OF 2013
Pandharinath Shankar Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs.
The Collector, Pune and others
..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8359 OF 2013
Devram Maruti Gawari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
8/18
wp8348.13.sxw
9
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8360 OF 2013
Shantaram Baban Parkhi and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8361 OF 2013
Morya Damu Hargude and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8362 OF 2013
Kashinath L. Parikh and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8363 OF 2013
Vitthal Baburao Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8364 OF 2013
Gulab Ganpat Shinde and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8365 OF 2013
Gaubai Nivrutti Gawari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8366 OF 2013 Nathu Dagdu Godambe and Ors. ..Petitioners.
9/18
10
wp8348.13.sxw
Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8367 OF 2013
Mahadu Amruta Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8368 OF 2013 Bhagwan Narayan Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8369 OF 2013 Murlidhar G. Sawant and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8370 OF 2013 Bajirao D. Sathe and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8371 OF 2013 Khandu G. Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8372 OF 2013 Yuvraj R. Sathe and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
10/18
wp8348.13.sxw
11
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8373 OF 2013
Ramchandra B. Bhoir and Ors. Vs.
Ramchandra B. Bhoir and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8374 OF 2013
Sunita Y. Sudam and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8375 OF 2013
Ganpat S. Balwadekar and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8376 OF 2013
Santu Gangaram Gawari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8377 OF 2013
Sopan Raghu Gavari and Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. The Collector, Pune and others ..Respondents.
Shri T.D. Deshmukh a/w Ritesh Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Shri V.P. Malvankar, AGP, 'A' Panel for Respondent Nos. 1,3 and 5.
Shri P.P. Chavan a/w Navdeep Vora i/by Navdeep Vora & Associates for Respondent No.2..
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 4, 2014
11/18
wp8348.13.sxw
12
P.C.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, learned Counsel appearing for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for short “MIDC”) and learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State.
That the lands held by the Petitioners were put to acquisition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short the “said Act”). Notices under sections 32(2) and Notification under section 32(1) were issued respectively on 13 September 2001 and 6 August 2004. Orders in terms of sub-section (2) of section 33 determining compensation in terms of the Agreement between the Petitioners and the State Government were passed on 31 January, 2005. The orders under sub-section (2) of section 33 record that there is an agreement between the owners and the State Government for payment of compensation at the rate of of Rs. 17,50,000/- per Hectare. On 9 December 2009/22 January 2010, the Petitioners addressed a letter to the District Collector calling upon him to hold an inquiry in accordance with subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 33 for determining the market value. In paragraph 12 of the said Representation/Application, it was alleged that the Petitioners were pressurized by the Sub-Divisional Officer to sign the Agreements in terms of sub-section (2) of section 33 by threatening them that the possession of their lands will be taken over. The second allegation is that none of the Agreements have been signed before 31 January 2005 though dates
12/18
13 wp8348.13.sxw
mentioned thereon show that the same were signed before the said date. The allegation is that the signatures of the Petitioners have been obtained on the said Agreements in a great haste. There is a notice issued by the Advocate for the Petitioners on 14 March 2012 addressed to the Regional Officer of MIDC, Pune, District Collector, Pune and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maval, Pune calling upon them to initiate inquiry under sub-sections (3), (4), and (5) of section 33 of the said Act within a period of 15 days.
13/18
14 wp8348.13.sxw
the certified copy of the order dated 31 January 2005 supplied to the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8340/2013 in the year 2005, the date of the Agreement and some other material particulars have been kept blank. The date of the Agreement is mentioned as 30 January 2005 whereas the copy of the agreement supplied to the Petitioners shows the date thereon as 2 January, 2005. He urged that there are several discrepancies in the entire process as recorded in the averments made in the Petitions. He submitted that several acts have been allegedly made on the dates which were public holidays. He submitted that there is nothing placed on record to show that the Agreements were voluntarily executed by the Petitioners and that also before 31 January, 2005. He invited our attention to the material averments in the Petitions explaining the delay. He urged that even copies of the orders allegedly passed on 31 January 2005 contain several discrepancies. He submits that a serious doubt is also created regarding the whole process undertaken by the Respondents. He submits that as the alleged agreements relied upon by the Respondents are illegal, an inquiry for determining compensation in accordance with sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 33 ought to have been held. He relied upon the decision of this Court dated 11 October 1999 in Writ Petition no.346 of 1990 ( Shri Vitthal R. Kate and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1, Solapur and others ) and other connected Writ Petitions. He submits that in a similar fact situation, by setting aside the orders under sub-section (2) of section 33, this Court directed that an inquiry be held under sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the said Act.
6 We have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that
14/18
15 wp8348.13.sxw
orders under sub-section (2) of section 33 were passed in relation to the lands of the Petitioners on 31st January, 2005. The orders are passed on the basis of Agreements between the Petitioners and the State Government. It is not in dispute that in the year 2005 itself, all the Petitioners received compensation amount computed at the rate of Rs. 17,50,000/- per Hectare as per the orders dated 31st January, 2005. For the first time, by a letter dated 9 December 2009/22 January 2010, a protest was made by the Petitioners regarding the execution of the Agreements on the basis of which orders were passed on 31st January 2005. Paragraph 13 of the said Application/Representation reads thus:
“13. The acquisition proceeding was already delayed for more than four years and as such the land owners were facing financial crisis and also they were being pressurized by the SDO that their possession would be taken forcefully therefore the landowners had no option but to sign the impugned agreements at the time of disbursement of payment which was the only way they could get their payments released. Thus the landowners had not signed the impugned agreement before the Order U/s 33(2) which was passed by the SDO on 31-01-2005. The SDO obtained signatures of some of the land owners from the same group in great haste without giving any time to think. Therefore the SDO was not able to procure signatures from all land owners of the same group on the impugned agreements.”
15/18
16 wp8348.13.sxw
Surprisingly in the legal notice, there is absolutely no allegation made of any specific illegality. Paragraph 1 of the notice refers to the order under sub-section (2) of section 33 made on 31 January, 2005. The only allegation made in paragraph 2 is that the proceedings have not been conducted as per the law by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the orders have been passed without reaching an agreement with the land owners. There is no reference to any allegations which find place in the Application dated 9 December, 2009/22 January 2010. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 13 of the said Application, there was a specific allegation made against the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maval giving a threat to the Petitioners of obtaining physical possession. There is a specific allegation that the Sub-Divisional Officer obtained signatures of some of the land owners in a great haste. In the Advocate's notice dated 14 March, 2012 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, the said allegations are absent. The only request made by the notice is to initiate inquiry under sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 33 of the said Act. The present Petitions have been filed on 23 January 2013.
16/18
wp8348.13.sxw
17
9 December 2009 / 22 January 2010, this grievance was made for the first time. The Petitioners have not even offered to return the compensation which they have received in the year 2005 at the rate of Rs. 17,50,000/- per Hectare. The said letter is signed by an Advocate. The same Advocate appears to have issued a legal notice dated 14 March 2012 in which the allegations made in Petitions are conspicuously absent. The Petitioners waited for 10 months after service of notice to file the presents Petitions which were affirmed on 23 January, 2013.
17/18
18
wp8348.13.sxw
Case of Vitthal R. Kate and others . In this case, an order under section 33(2) appears to have been passed on 1 September, 1989. The Petitions were filed by the claimants immediately in the year 1990. The Petitions proceeded on the basis of averments that signatures of the Petitioners were obtained by misrepresentation. In paragraph 8, the Division Bench observed that no return has been filed dealing with the said allegations. Therefore, the Division Bench accepted the said allegations.
13 We accordingly reject the Petitions. The Petitioners shall pay costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- in each Petition to MIDC within a period of 8 weeks from today.
18/18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of over seven years in challenging land acquisition compensation orders bars the maintainability of the writ petitions.
Whether pending genuine complaints regarding signature dates on acquisition agreements preclude the court from entertaining a writ petition after long inactivity.
Whether the claimants' failure to return compensation received before filing the petitions indicates lack of bona fides.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Vitthal R. Kate and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1, Solapur and othersDistinguished¶11
Writ Petition no.346 of 1990 (Shri Vitthal R. Kate and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1, Solapur and others)
Vitthal R. Kate and othersDistinguished¶11
1 October 2009 in the Case of Vitthal R. Kate and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hanuman Baban Bhumkar and Ors.
The Collector, Pune
A.S. OKA
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
