Dismissed

Shri. Mansingh Genu Roman and Ors. v. the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2016WP/11057/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected a writ petition challenging a District Collector's report refusing to return acquired land to original owners. Relying on State of Kerala vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, the court held that once acquisition is complete, land vests in the state and cannot be returned, even if not required for the public purpose.

What the court decided

AI extract

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are relying upon the report submitted to the Vidhan Sabha on 19th July 2000 which according to the petitioners record that the lands which were acquired for rehabilitation of the project affected persons of Dhom Project in District Satara should be returned to the original owners. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the action taken report dated 15th October 2003 submitted by the District Collector to the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue and Forest Department. The action taken report records that the acquired land cannot be returned to its original owners.

2The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the acquisition of the lands held by the petitioners was not legal and valid. He submitted that on the basis of the grievance made by the petitioners, the Vidhan Sabha had constituted a Committee headed by Shri Pramod Shende and the report submitted by the said Committee recommends return of the acquired lands to the petitioners. He urged that the Collector could not have acted contrary to the said report and record a conclusion that the acquired lands cannot be returned. His submission is that there are no proper Awards made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short `the said Act') and the acquisition proceedings are illegal. There is an affidavit in reply tendered by Smt.Smita Pradip Pawar, the Tahsildar (Resettlement), Satara in which it is stated that the acquisition was completed in 1976 by making Awards under section 11 of the said Act.

3We have considered the submissions. In this petition there is no challenge to the legality of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are seeking implementation of the report dated 19th July 2000 submitted by a Committee to the Vidhan Sabha which according to the petitioners recommendations that the acquired lands be returned to the original owners.

Kerala and others vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another1. The law is that once on completion of the acquisition proceedings the acquired lands vest in the State Government, the same cannot be returned to the original owners even if the same are not required for any public purpose. If the State Government wants to allot the lands to the original owners, the same can be done only in terms of the Disposal of Land Rules framed under the Relevant law.

6Hence, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is rejected. Pending civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of.

Shri. Mansingh Genu Roman and Ors. v. the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Mansingh Genu Roman and Ors. v. the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashtriya Ekta Hawkers Union Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Kamlakar Rama Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Sagar Shivajirao Jondhale Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Maruti Kamble (Decd) through Lr. Smt. Janabai Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Vitthal Kumbhar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aba Nana Dubbal, through Power of Attorney, Mohan Aba Dubbal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rehabilitation and Ors.