Dismissed¶25

Dnyaneshwar S/O Laxmanrao Amzhare v. State of Maha., Thr. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), Amravati and Others

Land acquisition compensation – apportionment

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025WP/8377/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 8377/2023, Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, Anil L. Pansare J., 27.01.2025 - apportionment of compensation for acquired Gat No.66 (0.95 HR), Mouza Borgaon Talani, Achalpur, Amravati under S.51 RFCTLARR Act 2013; oral partition of 1996 held unsubstantiated; unregistered relinquishment deed 15.09.2008 inadmissible; prior registered sale 16.02.2000 to respondent No.6; respondent No.1 held owner at commencement of acquisition; Authority's order dated 02.11.2023 (Reference Case No.1192/AMT/AMT/2021) upheld; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's theory that the original owner had orally partitioned the property in the year 1996 is without any substance. ¶7

Dnyaneshwar S/O Laxmanrao Amzhare Vs State of Maha., Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner had ownership over the acquired property (Gat No.66) so as to be entitled to apportionment of the compensation amount, based on his two claimed grounds: alleged oral partition of 1996 and relinquishment deed dated 15.09.2008 executed by respondent Nos.2 to 8, as against respondent No.1's objection to apportionment to any person other than himself.

¶13

Court's answer

The petitioner's theory that the original owner had orally partitioned the property in the year 1996 is without any substance.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The relinquishment deed could not have been taken into account for two reasons: the original owner had already sold the property to respondent No.6 in the year 2000, and the deed is inadmissible as it is not registered.

¶23

Key takeaways

Respondent No.1 was the owner of the disputed property when the acquisition proceedings commenced, and he rightly objected to apportionment to any person other than himself.ratio¶24
The Authority below, having considered the relevant material, correctly dealt with the contents put forth by the petitioner and refused to entertain his claim.ratio¶24
The impugned order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority, Nagpur is in tune with the provisions of law and no interference is called for.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition compensation - apportionment - reference under Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Authority (Nagpur) by order dated 02.11.2023 in Reference Case No.1192/AMT/AMT/2021 refused apportionment to petitioner - writ petition challenging said order. Held: (i) petitioner's theory of oral partition of the property by original owner Laxman Amzhare in 1996 is without substance - the father allegedly effecting the partition expired in 2001 and neither he nor the petitioner took steps to effect or intimate the so-called oral partition to the Talathi; (ii) the relinquishment deed dated 15.09.2008 executed by respondent Nos.2 to 8 could not be taken into account because the original owner had already sold the property to respondent No.6 vide registered sale-deed dated 16.02.2000, and the deed being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence; (iii) respondent No.1 was the owner of the disputed property when the acquisition proceedings commenced and rightly objected to apportionment to any person other than himself; the Authority correctly refused the petitioner's claim and its order is in tune with the provisions of law. Petition dismissed.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:3546

¶2

Corrected WP-8377-2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8377 OF 2023

¶6

[Dnyaneshwar S/o Laxmanrao Amzhare ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and Ors.]

¶7

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Mr R. U. Tambe, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr S. B. Bissa, AGP for Respondent/State. Mr A. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATE : 27th JANUARY, 2025.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

A dispute arose between the parties as regards apportionment of amount, and therefore, a reference was made to the Authority constituted under Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act of 2013”).

¶12

The land under question, bearing Gat No.66 admeasuring 0.95 HR is situated at Mouza Borgaon Talani, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati and was acquired for minor irrigation project. The award was passed initially on 18.02.2016 and thereafter on 14.09.2020. One Shri. Sudhakar Mahadeorao Amzhare (respondent No.2 herein) raised an objection for apportionment of compensation amount. Accordingly, the matter came to be referred to the Authority for adjudication.

¶13

The petitioner claimed ownership over the property on two grounds. One is that in the year 1996, the property under question was given to him in oral partition. The

¶14

Corrected WP-8377-2023

¶15

¶16

Authority found no evidence on this point. It noted that Shri. Laxman Amzhare, the father of petitioner, who has allegedly given property in oral partition in the year 1996, has expired in the year 2001. The Authority further noted that there is nothing on record to show that the alleged oral partition was intimated to concerned Talathi for enforcement. Thus, neither the father of petitioner nor the petitioner took steps to effect the so called oral partition. Therefore, the Authority rightly held that there is no evidence on this point.

¶17

The second ground on which the petitioner intends to claim ownership over the property is that the respondent Nos.2 to 8 have relinquished their rights in favour of the petitioner under relinquishment deed executed on 15.09.2008. The Authority noted that the relinquishment deed makes no reference to the oral partition of 1996, and further that the deed is inadmissible in evidence since not registered.

¶18

Corrected as per the Court’s order dated 18.03.2025.

¶19

It appears that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8 are legal heirs of Laxman Amzhare, the original owner of the property under question. Laxman Amzhare had sold the property to respondent No.6 vide registered sale-deed dated 16.02.2000. In the year 2002, the name of respondent No.1 was mutated in revenue record. However, it was later on set aside and name of petitioner came to be mutated on 13.12.2010. The respondent No.1, thereafter, challenged the said mutation and succeeded in the year 2017.

¶20

Thus, what transpires is that the theory of petitioner that the original owner had orally partitioned the property in the year 1996 is without any substance. So far as the relinquishment deed is concerned, the same could not have

¶21

Corrected WP-8377-2023

¶22

¶23

been taken into account for two reasons. One is that the original owner had sold the property to respondent No.6 in the year 2000 and secondly is inadmissible as not registered.

¶24

Be that as it may, the facts remain that the respondent No.1 was the owner of disputed property when the acquisition proceedings commenced. He has rightly objected the apportionment to any other person except himself. The Authority below having considered the relevant material has correctly dealt with the contents put forth by the petitioner and refused to entertain the claim. The order impugned, therefore, appears to my mind to be in tune with the provisions of law. No interference is called for in the impugned order dated 02.11.2023 passed in Reference Case No.1192/AMT/AMT/2021 by the Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority, Nagpur.

¶25

The petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

TAMBE

Dnyaneshwar S/O Laxmanrao Amzhare v. State of Maha., Thr. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar S/O Laxmanrao Amzhare v. State of Maha., Thr. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar S/O. Subhah Bhoyar and Anr. vs State of Maha., Thr. Assistant Collector as Well as Sub Divisional Officer, Kelapur and Ors.

Nanda W/O Vikas Meshram Vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Vikas S/O Pandurang Meshram Vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Vilas S/O. Jagobaji Bomanwar and Others Vs Nirmala W/O. Manoharrao Shatalwar (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Mahadeo S/O Bhagawan Gandhare vs Raju S/O Bhaiyaji Zade and Others

Mandeep Singh S/O. Amarjit Singh Bhatia and Others Vs Rajesh Deorao Meshram and Another