Disposed

Pandharinath Vishvanath Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC4 Aug 2023WP/8188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition where farmers sought compensation for land acquired for public projects where contractors were paid first. The court directed the State to issue a Section 11 notice within 30 days and dispose objections within 2 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Section 11 notice to be issued within 30 days of proposal receipt and objections corrected within 2 weeks.

Pandharinath Vishvanath Pawar and Others Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

903 WRIT PETITION NO.8188 OF 2023

¶4

PANDHARINATH VISHVANATH PAWAR AND OTHERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶7

Mr.P.B.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for the Respondent/State.

¶8

DATE : AUGUST 4, 2023

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1.There are hundreds of cases before us wherein lands of
farmers have been acquired for construction of percolation tanks or
storage tanks or for sinking wells. All this happens to be a part of
public projects. The percolation tanks / storage tanks are constructed.
All the contractors are paid their bills and the Petitioners before us,
invariably, are farmers, who are literally begging for the compensation
amounts for the lands that have been acquired.

¶11

2.The case in hand is one wherein the storage tank C.R.

¶12

khs/August 2023/8188

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

No.16/2012 was constructed after the lands of the Petitioners were
acquired. After the tanks were constructed, it was noticed that certain
parts of the lands of the Petitioners are affected. Thereafter the
Authorities woke up and started moving the files. The result is that till
today, the Petitioners are yet to receive the compensation amount and
the proposal that was forwarded on 01.08.2023, was placed under
objections as certain deficiencies have been noticed.

¶15

3.Prima-facie, we are of the view that the sequence of events
of construction of percolation tanks / storage tanks indicated that the
contractors getting their amounts, whereas the affected farmers are left
high and dry. If the lands of any farmer or any individual is affected,
acquisition proceedings should be initiated. The payment of
compensation should occur at the earliest and preferably before making
the payments to the contractors.

¶16

4.The learned AGP informs us by stating that under the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Government has to first
prepare an award with regard to the land that is being utilized for the

¶17

khs/August 2023/8188

¶18

- 3 -

¶19

public project, make the payment to the affected land owner, then take
possession of the land and thereafter carry out the development in the
public project.

¶20

5.He further submits that since this is an old case, the
Government will try its best to ensure that the Petitioners will get the
compensation at the earliest. He submits on instructions that the
objections in the proposal of the Petitioners will be corrected by the
Acquiring Body/Respondent No.8, within 2 weeks. Thereafter the
proposal would be forwarded to Respondent No.6, within 2 weeks.
Thereafter, as per the provisions of the 2013 Act, Section 11 notice
followed by hearing on objections, followed by Section 19 notice and
the award, will be done strictly with the timeline provided under the
Act.

¶21

6.The Petitioners voice a grievance that some timeline be
granted because the Authorities will merrily take their own time. We,
therefore, direct that the Section 11 notice shall be issued within 30
days after the proposal is received in the light of the above statement of
the learned AGP.

¶22

khs/August 2023/8188

¶23

¶24

7. In view of the above directions, this petition is disposed off .

¶25

 ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶26

khs/August 2023/8188

Pandharinath Vishvanath Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandharinath Vishvanath Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Eknathrao Ekade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Jitendra Uddhavrao Choudhari Vs Vaishali Jitendra Choudhari

Govind Poslya Gavit and Another Vs the Competent Authority and or Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another

Appasaheb Haribhau Patil Vs the Union of India through Project Director and Others

Vijay Hiraman Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachin Pandurang Nisargan Vs Pushpa Sachin Nisargan