Disposed

Balasaheb Bapuji Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Nov 2014WP/876/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Collector and NHAI to initiate and complete land acquisition proceedings within one month and conclude compensation determination within one year for land taken over by the State without paying compensation, though ownership title was not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within one month and conclude compensation determination within one year.

Balasaheb Bapuji Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

WP876-7.11

1/4

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.876 OF 2011

¶5

Balasaheb Bapuji Kale and others versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

...Petitioners.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. M.S. Karnik for the Petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. M.L. Patil for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

7^th November 2014.

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the learned AGP for the First and Third Respondents. It appears that notice has been served to the added Respondent as per office endorsement of 26^th December 2013. Notice for final disposal was issued on 17^th June 2013.

¶15

The case made out in the Petition is that the Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 883/1/1 admeasuring 9475 sq. meters, out of which area of 7710 sq. meters was shown as reserved for road widening. Remaining area was shown reserved for primary school and municipal purposes.

¶16

In paragraph 5 of the Petition it is alleged that the area of 7710 sq. meters is already utilized for road widening. The Petitioners are relying

WP876-7.11

2/4

PNP

upon the notice dated 25^th January 2006 addressed to the Second Respondent as well as the Third Respondent. The first prayer in the Petition is for payment of compensation at the market rate in respect of the area of 7710 sq. meters. The second prayer made in the alternative is for initiating and completing the acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has invited our attention to the documents on pages 24 and 25 of the Petition. The same are certificates issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik which indicate that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short 'the said Act of 1894') was issued in relation to the said land and the said notification has lapsed. Both the documents record that the acquiring body could not deposit the compensation amount in his office. The document at page No.25 is the certificate dated 13^th March 2001 which specifically records that the said portion of the land was acquired for highway.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the Second Respondent – Nashik Municipal Corporation stated on instructions that there is no record available with the Municipal Corporation to show that the said area of 7710 sq. meters was acquired for the purposes of the said Municipal Corporation and in fact, the acquisition was for the purposes of the National Highway. The learned AGP has no instructions. The Third Respondent Collector has not filed a reply. The Fourth Respondent –

WP876-7.11

3/4

PNP

National Highway Authority of India has not chosen to appear in spite of service of notice.

¶27

The certificate dated 13^th March 2001 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2, Nashik specifically records that the area of 71 Ares out of land bearing Survey No.883/1/1 at Nashik was acquired for the purposes of highway and the acquisition proceedings initiated on the basis of notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 have lapsed. The said certificate records that the compensation amount was not deposited by the acquiring body.

¶28

Thus, it appears to be an undisputed position that the possession of area of 7710 sq. meters, out of land bearing Survey No.883/1/1 at Nashik was taken over for the purposes of National Highway, but the acquisition proceedings lapsed and no compensation has been paid in respect of the acquisition of the said land.

¶29

The Second Respondent has categorically stated that the acquisition is not for the purposes of the said Respondent. If the contention raised by the Petitioners that they are the owners of the said land is correct, it is obvious that the Petitioners have been deprived of their valuable land in breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a direction will have to be issued to the Third and Fourth Respondents to acquire the land in accordance with law and complete the acquisition proceedings by awarding compensation to appropriate persons within the time provided

WP876-7.11

4/4

PNP

by this Court. While we are issuing the aforesaid direction, we make it clear that no adjudication is made on the issue of the title / ownership claimed by the Petitioners in relation to the said land.

¶34

We accordingly dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

¶35

i) We direct the Third and Fourth Respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of land admeasuring 7710 sq. meters out of Survey No.883/1/1 situated at Nashik within the limits of the Second Respondent Corporation;

¶36

ii) The acquisition proceedings shall be initiated within a period of one month from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is served by the Petitioners to the Fourth Respondent;

¶37

iii) The acquisition proceedings shall be concluded by determining the compensation payable in respect of the said land within a period of one year from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is served upon the Fourth Respondent;

¶38

iv) On failure of the Third and/or the Fourth Respondent to abide by the aforesaid directions within the stipulated time, apart from the remedies of the Petitioners under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, it will be open for the Petitioners to file a fresh petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate reliefs;

¶39

v) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶40

(A.S. Gadkari, J.) (A.S. Oka, J.)

Balasaheb Bapuji Kale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Bapuji Kale 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

The Manganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, through Ramchandra Tukaram Kadam Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Shri. Khushal Bhaguji Waje and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Krishna Vally Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Mr Shailesh Ramesh Boob, Vs the State of Maharashtra Throug,Secretary Agriculture and Co-Op Department and Ors.

Mr. Akil Rashid Mulla Vs the District Collector, Alibag and Ors.

The Kopergaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Kopargoan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.