Petitioner sought direction to return land acquired over 15 years ago allegedly breached by allottee. Court held acquired land vests in State and allotment disputes are between State and allottee, dismissing petition.
Petitioner's claim for return of acquired land is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
Sherla V.
wp.6549.2014_911.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6549 OF 2014
Shri Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil ... Petitioner
Vs.
Mohan Shivram Vaskar (PAP) & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.M.S. Lagu for the Petitioner Mr.Vikas Mali, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE: 5th MARCH, 2015
P.C.:
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 State to decide the representation made by the petitioner and return the land of the petitioner acquired by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for rehabilitation of the project affected persons.
It appears that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the year 2000. After the acquisition of the land, the land was alloted by the State Government to the respondent No.1 – project affected person on certain terms and conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that certain
1 / 3
wp.6549.2014_911.doc
terms and conditions of the allotment have been breached by the Respondent No.1, inasmuch as the respondent No.1 has executed a registered deed of power of attorney empowering the holder thereof to alienate the land and perform other acts which are necessary for the maintainance of the land and also the sale thereof. According to the petitioner, the government is obliged to return the land to the petitioner as the respondent No.1 has breached the conditions of allotment.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. The land of the petitioner was acquired more than 15 years earlier. As soon as the land was acquired, the land has vested in the government in view of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The government has allotted the land in favour of the Respondent No.1. If the conditions of allotment are breached by the respondent No.1, it is a matter between the State Government and the respondent No.1. The petitioner has no concern with the same. The petitioner has also no right to seek the possession of the land once it is acquired by the State Government. Also, on a reading of the deed of power of attorney, it does not appear that the Respondent No.1 has breached any of the terms and conditions of the allotment as the deed authorises the power of attorney holder to utilise the property and if
2 / 3
wp.6549.2014_911.doc
necessary, sell the same only after securing the necessary permissions from the concerned authorities. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any right in the petitioner to seek the possession of the lands that were acquired before the year 2000. In such circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
3 / 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner whose land was acquired more than 15 years ago can seek its return from the State Government when the allottee has allegedly breached allotment conditions.
Whether a breach of terms by a project affected person empowers the former owner to claim possession of land since acquired by the State.
Shri Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil
Mohan Shivram Vaskar (PAP) & Ors.
Vasanti A. Naik
C.V. Bhadang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
