Partly allowed

Shri Tatu Kondiba Patil and Ors. v. Shri Anandrao Khanderao Gaikwad

Bombay HC23 Feb 2017CAW/610/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was not paid and possession was not taken after the award of 1982. The writ petition allowing the claim of lapsing proceedings was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Declared that acquisition proceedings for Survey No.318-B have lapsed and disposed of the writ petition and pending application.

Shri Tatu Kondiba Patil and Ors. Vs Shri Anandrao Khanderao… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

pvr 1 906wp6285-14-caw610-16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Writ Petition NO. 6285 OF 2014

¶5

Shri. Anandrao Khanderao Gaikwad ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Uday Bobade i/b. Mr.Suresh Sabrad, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.P.G.Sawant, AGP for the Respondents 1 to 6 – State.

¶8

CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J., & G.S.KULKARNI, J.

¶9

DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2017

¶10

P. C.

¶11

The Petitioner approached this Court challenging the

¶12

very acquisition of the land in Gat No.318-B which became the subject matter after the acquisition notification in the year 1982 as indicated in “Exhibit A-1” at page 18A. The land in question is situated at Village Kakhe, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur. As indicated in the award, land at Gat No.318-B is admeasuring 1 H. 21 R. According to the Petitioner, in spite of the award being made in the year 1982, till date he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He also contends that no compensation is paid

¶13

pvr 2 906wp6285-14-caw610-16.doc

¶14

and no possession is taken over. Though the order of status-quo came to be made way back on 24 September 2014 which is continued till date, the Respondents-Authorities have not placed any reply affidavit on record denying the factual position in regard to the possession and payment of compensation as contended in the Writ Petition. In the absence of any reply, we presume that the averments in the Writ Petition supported by the oral arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are true and correct.

¶15

With the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, from 1 January 2014 the new enactment viz. “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the Act of 2013') has come into force. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 contemplates the consequence by operation of law if no award was made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, till coming into force of the new enactment. This is under Sub-section (1) of Section 24. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act speaks of two situations where the land acquisition proceedings even if completed with an Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, if

¶16

pvr 3 906wp6285-14-caw610-16.doc

¶17

possession is not taken and if compensation is not paid, the acquisition proceedings get lapsed. So far as the present case, sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act comes into play. The consequence of non-payment of compensation and not taking possession of the property, would result in lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

¶18

Accordingly, the petition is allowed declaring that the land acquisition proceedings so far as Survey No.318-B, land admeasuring 1 H 21 R situated at Village Kakhe, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur, are lapsed.

¶19

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending Civil

¶21

Application does not survive. It is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

Shri Tatu Kondiba Patil and Ors. v. Shri Anandrao Khanderao Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Tatu Kondiba Patil and Ors. v. Shri Anandrao Khanderao Gaikwad

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

Mr. Pandit Dnyanoba Tapkir Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.17 and Ors.

Shri. Maruti Baburao Tambe and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Shri. Vitthal Krushna Bhagat and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Shri. Sagar Dattatraya Magdum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Prin. Secretary (Revenue), Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Laxman Jiwaji Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ganpat Kondiba Kudekar (Decd) through Lrs Vilas Ganpat Kudekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.