Held that acquisition proceedings lapsed and the 1894 Award was quashed because compensation was not paid despite the award being declared over five years prior to the 2013 Act.
Declaration that acquisition proceedings lapsed; quashing of the Award declared under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
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.
wp 640.15.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.640 OF 2015
Mr.R.S. Deshmukh i/b Mr.V.V. Ingale advocates for the petitioners Mr.P.S. Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondents
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ
(Date : 1 st FEBRUARY, 2016.)
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for
final decision at admission stage.
{2}
wp 640.15.odt
2 The petitioners are praying for a declaration that, by virtue of provisions of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, the proceedings of acquisition and the Award declared pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 shall stand lapsed, since the petitioners have not been paid compensation in respect of the acquired land.
3 According to the petitioners, the landed property belonging to them out of survey Nos.147/1/2 and 147/1/3 situate at village Sastur, Tq. Omarga, Dist. Osmanabad has been acquired for rehabilitation of earthquake affected persons in observance of procedure prescribed under the Act of 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 22.10.1996. The petitioners contend that, neither the possession of the land under the acquisition has been handed over to the State Government, nor they have been paid compensation, determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.
4 So far as the aspect of taking over the possession of the property by the State Government is concerned, there is a serious dispute raised by the respondents and it is contended that, the possession has already been taken over. However, so far as the payment of compensation is concerned, it is contended in the
{3}
wp 640.15.odt
affidavit in reply presented on behalf of the respondents that, the petitioners have not withdrawn the amount of compensation determined by the land acquisition officer.
5 It is not the case of the State Government that, the amount of compensation has been deposited in the accounts of the petitioners or that, the said amount has been transferred to the Court which normally deals with the proceedings in respect of reference applications, arising out of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
6 In this context, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pune Municipal Corporation & another V/s Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in 2014 (4) Mh. L.J. 566 is relevant. In paragraph No.17 of the Judgment, the Honourable Supreme court has observed thus:-
“ 17. While enacting section 24(2), Parliament definitely had in its view section 31 of the 1894 Act. From that one thing is clear that it did not intend to equate the word ‘paid’ to ‘offered’ or ‘tendered’. But at the same time, we do not think that by use of the word ‘paid’, Parliament intended receipt of the compensation by the landowners/persons interested. In our view, it is not appropriate to give a literal construction to the expression ‘paid’ used in this sub-section (sub-section (2) of the 1894 Act in the event of happening of any of the contingencies contemplated herein which may prevent the Collector
wp 640.15.odt
{4}
from making actual payment of compensation. We are of the view, therefore, that for the purposes of section 24(2), the compensation shall be regarded as ‘paid’ if the compensation has been offered to the person interested and such compensation has been deposited in the Court where reference under section 18 can be made on happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. In other words, the compensation may be said to have been ‘paid’ within the meaning of section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation and deposited the amount of compensation in Court and made that amount available to the interested person to be dealt with as provided in sections 32 and 33.”
7 Since in the instant matter, there is non-compliance of the mandate of payment of compensation to the petitioners and both the conditions enumerated in section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 having been satisfied, viz. Award has been declared five years or more prior to the enactment of the Act of 2013 and that the amount of compensation has not been paid to the land owners, the proceedings in respect of acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed and the award declared under the Act of 1894 shall be required to be quashed and set aside so far as the petitioners are concerned and it is accordingly ordered. It would be open for the State Government or the appropriate Government, if it so choses to initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in
wp 640.15.odt
{5}
accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013.
vbd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings of land acquisition under the Act of 1894 stand lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation.
Whether the interpretation of 'paid' in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act requires the compensation to be deposited in Court.
Whether the Lapsed Award under the 1894 Act needs to be quashed when its declaration was five years or more before the enactment of the 2013 Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pune Municipal Corporation & another V/s Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and othersApplied¶27
2014 (4) Mh. L.J. 566 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rabbani S/o Amir Nalegave
Taibunbai w/o Amir Nalegave
State of Maharashtra
Collector, Osmanabad
Lad Acquisition Officer
R.M. Borde
A.I.S. Cheema
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
