The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-payment of rental compensation for land acquired before the issuance of Section 4 notification. The court found the petition devoid of merit as the respondent did not admit taking possession in 1984.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
3 WRIT PETITION NO.6184 OF 2015
MOTIRAM NARSINGH MULE THROUGH GPA VITTAL ATMARAM MULE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Salunke V.D.
Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr.Tandale P.R.
AGP for Respondents No.3 : Mrs.M.A.Deshpande
...
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
AVINASH G.GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 07TH OCTOBER, 2019.
ORAL ORDER :
Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner at length.
2.The grievance being raised in the petition is
of non payment of benefit to which the petitioner, who
is the land owner, is entitled to i.e. the rental
compensation for the land of the petitioner acquired by
the respondents.
3.The admitted fact situation is that the
petitioner was the owner of a piece of land in Survey
No. 30/ Gut No. 93, ad-measuring 65 R,
2 wp6184.15
situated at Honishipparga Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
It is stated in the petition that the land was
acquired for the percolation tank, as such the
process of acquisition of land was initiated. It
is stated in the petition that on 6.12.1990.
Section 6 notification was issued and finally the
award came to be passed on 31st March, 1993. The
petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner was
paid compensation of Rs.25,485/- for his acquired
land. It is also stated in the petition that being
dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded, a
grievance is raised that the compensation that has
been awarded is inadequate.
4.The petitioner filed a Reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for
enhancement of the compensation. The learned
District Judge allowed the Reference. It is then
stated that being aggrieved by the judgment and
award passed by the learned District Judge, dated
2.4.2007, the State Government preferred an appeal
in this Court and on finding no favour with the
appellant/State, appeal was rejected by this Court
3 wp6184.15
by order dated 4.1.2010. Then it is stated that
though the petitioner has no grievance in-so-far as
the market price for the acquired land, he is
having a specific grievance of non payment of
rental compensation to him, on the backdrop of the
fact that his land was acquired in the year 1984
i.e. before five years of issuance of section 4
notification dated 25.1.1989. It is vehemently
submitted by Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the
petitioner, that respondent authorities were duty
bound to pay the rental compensation to the
petitioner and this view is consistently taken by
this Court as well as the Hon'ble the Apex Court
and the petitioner cannot be singled out or no
discriminatory treatment can be given to the
petitioner by depriving him from the benefit of
rental compensation.
5.The issue being limited to the grievance
of the petitioner i.e. the non payment of rental
compensation, we have minutely gone through the
petition proper, the annexures of the petition and
the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 Ajay
4 wp6184.15
Kumar Ramrao Kasabe, the Sub Divisional Engineer,
Sub Division, Udgir on a notice issued by this
Court. Perusal of the petition proper, shows that
though it refers to various facts which we have
already stated in the earlier part of our order,
in-so-far as the crucial point of non payment of
rental compensation to the petitioner is concerned,
the statement in the petition reads thus :
“The respondent had taken possession
of the land of the petitioner in the
year 1984 i.e. before 5 years of
Section 4 notification then Section 4
notification was issued, award is
passed,howevertherental
compensation for which the petitioner
is entitled has not been given to him
in the award nor separately”.
6.When we confronted the learned Counsel
Mr.Salunke, with this peculiar fact, that the above
averment does not disclose the date on which
possession is alleged to have been taken five years
prior to Section 4 notification, Mr. Salunke,
vehemently submitted that the petitioner being
illiterate agriculturist, may not be aware of the
specific date of possession, he however contends
that this fact is also not denied by the
5
wp6184.15
respondents”.
7.Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in support of his submission invited
our attention to the copy of award placed on record
and submitted that in the award a specific
reference is made to the factum of possession being
taken earlier in point of time in Clause-P. Clause-
P reads thus :
“P) Possession :- The possession of the
lands under acquisition has already
been taken over by the A.B. private
negotiation. The A.B. should therefore
payment to the interested persons at
the rates prescribed by Government for
the period from the date of taking over
possession the date of payment of
advance compensation and therefore on
the balance amount to compensation till
the date of making final payment no
advance compensation has been paid this
case”.
8.Reading this part of Clause, by no stretch
of imagination, we are able to get the date of
possession apart from which the document in which
the above statement is contended is a proforma
award.
6 wp6184.15
9.Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the
petitioner though vehemently submitted that there
is no denial to taking of possession by respondents
in the year 1984. On perusal of affidavit in reply
on behalf of respondents, we could not find any
such admission of the respondents. On the contrary
the statement in the affidavit in reply clearly
states that Section 4 notification of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 25.1.1989 by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and the award
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was
passed on 31.3.1993, compensation of Rs. 25,485/-
has also been paid to the petitioner by the
Government. Now reading this statement in the
affidavit-in-reply, we are unable to accept the
submission of Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel for
the petitioner that respondents have admitted the
position that the possession is taken in the year
1984. If respondents in their affidavit-in-reply
specifically state that Section 4 notification was
issued in the year 1989 the date is mentioned as
21.5.1989 i.e. the statutory point of the
acquisition proceeding, we are unable to accept the
statement of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the respondents have admitted the
position of facts situation that the possession was
taken in the year 1984. The respondents further
countered by stating in the affidavit-in-reply that
the petition is filed with an inordinate delay,
which has not been explained.
10.Thus, considering all above referred
facts, we are unable to accept the statement of
learned counsel for the petitioner. Resultantly, in
our opinion the petition is devoid of any merits.
Thus, Petition deserves to be dismissed and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
11.No costs.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE) (PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGEJUDGE
mahajan/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who acquired possession of his land prior to the Section 4 notification, is entitled to rental compensation.
Whether the petition successfully establishes the date of taking possession to claim rental compensation for the period prior to the award.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
MOTIRAM NARSINGH MULE THROUGH GPAVITTAL ATMARAM MULE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
PRASANNA B. VARALE
AVINASH G. GHAROTE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court