Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 27 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3197-DB
(1) wp5305.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5305 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 5311 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 6222 OF 2018
******
WRIT PETITION NO. 5305 OF 2018
1. Premchand Shivlal Agrawal, .. Petitioners
Age. 67 years, Occ. Agri.,
2. Santoshii Premchand Agrawal,
Age. 62 years, Occ.Agri.,
Both R/o. Shendurni,
Tq. Jamner & Dist. Jalgaon,
At present R/o. Plot No.12,
Sadguru Nagar, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Lalitabai Vijay Agrawal
Age. 60 years, Occ.Agri.,
R/o. Shendurni,
Tq. Jamner & Dist. Jalgaon.
4. Sitabai Hanumandas Agrawal
Age. 60 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Shendurni,
Tq. Jamner & Dist. Jalgaon.
At Present R/o. Near B.S.N.L. Office,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Through Collector, Aurangabad.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer &
Deputy Collector, Aurangabad.
(2) wp5305.18
3. The Executive Engineer,
Civil Construction Department,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Anjali Complex,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5311 OF 2018
1. Ravindra Shivlal Agrawal .. Petitioners
Age. 62 years, Occ. Agri.,
2. Ashabai Ravindra Agrawal
Age. 58 years, Occ. Agri.,
Both R/o. Shendurni,
Tq. Jamner & Dist. Jalgaon,
At Present R/o. Gruhkul Society,
MIDC, Jalgaon,
Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Through Collector, Aurangabad.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer &
Deputy Collector, Aurangabad.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Civil Construction Department,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Anjali Complex,
Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad.
(3) wp5305.18
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6222 OF 2018
The Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission .. Petitioner
Company Limited (M.S.E.T.C.L.),
Through its
Executive Engineer (Civil),
EHV Civil Division,
MSETCL, Aurangabad.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Through Department of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector,
Aurangabad.
3. Tahsildar,
Soyegaon, District Aurangabad.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
@ Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition),
Jayakwadi Project,
Aurangabad.
5. Collector of Stamps,
Aurangabad.
6. Ravindra Shivlal Agrawal,
Age. 63 years, Occ. Business,
7. Premchand Shivlal Agrawal,
Age. 67 years, Occ. Business,
8. Smt. Sitabai Hanumandas Agrawal
Age. 67 years, Occ. Household,
9. Smt. Lalitabai Vijay Agrawal,
Age. 60 years, Occ. Household,
(4) wp5305.18
10. Smt. Ashabai Ravindra Agrawal
Age. 57 years, Occ. Household,
11. Smt. Santoshibai Premchand Agrawal,
Age. 62 years, Occ. Household,
Resp. Nos. 6 to 11
R/o. Village Shendurni,
Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioners-claimants.
Ms. Jayashri P. Reddy, AGP for respondent-State.
Mr. D.P Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner/respondent - MSETCL in the
respective petitions.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 14.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.01.2026
COMMON JUDGMENT :[PER : KISHORE C. SANT, J.] :-
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties.
02. All these petitions are in respect of acquisition of lands of the petitioners-claimants in Writ Petition No. 5305 of 2018 and 5311 of 2018.
(Hereinafter referred to as "claimants" for the purpose of convenience). The petitioners in these two petitions have approached this Court with a prayer to direct the Authorities to acquire the lands of the claimants under the Act of 2013, namely, Right to Fair Compensation and (5) wp5305.18 Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to hold that the earlier proceeding initiated under the old Act has lapsed; Writ Petition No. 6222 of 2018 is filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (for short "MSETCL"), respondent No.3 in other two petitions, with a prayer to direct the Authorities to complete the proceedings of acquisition of lands by considering the date of taking of possession as the date for determination of market value. It is further prayed that the enquiry be conducted against the persons in the office of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the said petition. It is alleged that it is due to inaction of the officers of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 the earlier proceeding lapsed.
03. Heard all the parties. The petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission by the consent of the parties.
04. Undisputed facts of the petitions are that the petitioners- claimants in Writ Petition Nos. 5305 & 5311 of 2018 are the owners and possessors of lands from village Soygaon Amkheda. The possession of the lands of these claimants was taken for the purpose of construction of 220 KV sub-station on 28.05.2009. A Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 05.02.2009. The claimants (6) wp5305.18 submitted detailed reply on 07.05.2009. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.12.2009. A notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act also came to be issued on 20.01.2010. The claimants submitted a detailed reply on 07.04.2010. However, till 2013, no award was passed. The Authorities, therefore, again initiated fresh proceeding by issuing Notification under section 4 of the old Act on 13.06.2013. A declaration came to be issued on 24.01.2014. However, again no further action was taken. As no steps were taken even pursuant to the second Notification, the claimants made representation and requested the Authorities to initiate proceeding afresh under the new Act. Learned Special Land Acquisition Officer and Dy. Collector (SLAO) communicated to respondent No. 3 - Executive Engineer (Civil Construction Department) MSETCL to submit a fresh proposal as per new Act. Respondent No.2 again sent reminder on 08.12.2017 to respondent No.3. However, no action was taken thereafter. On 24.04.2018, the claimants sent a second reminder and requested to initiate acquisition proceeding afresh. The claimants, however, received an undated notice under section 9 (3)(4) of the old Act by registered post A.D. on 11.05.2018. The claimants, even on enquiry, could not get any answer from the respondents about the said notice. The claimants thereafter again submitted a representation to the (7) wp5305.18 respondent - Collector and the SLAO. It is apprehension of the claimants that the acquisition proceeding would be undertaken under the old Act, though the proceeding has clearly lapsed in view of section 11-A of the old Act. The claimants, therefore, approached this Court.
05. So far as Writ Petition No.6222 of 2018 is concerned, it is the allegation of the MSETCL that the earlier proceeding was deliberately allowed to be lapsed by the Authorities by acting in collusion with the claimants and it is in that view a prayer is made that the fresh proceeding be initiated under the new Act, however, market value of the land for the purpose of determining compensation as on the date of taking over possession of the land.
06. Heard learned Advocates for the parties at length. There is no dispute about the facts stated above. Learned Advocate Mr. Kale vehemently argued that in view of the provision of section 24 of the new Act, fresh proceeding is required to be undertaken under the new Act. The possession of the land is taken long back in 2009. It is clear from the dates that the earlier proceedings which were taken up twice have clearly lapsed in view of section 11-A of the old Act and section 24 of the new Act. Inspite of representations, no action has been taken to (8) wp5305.18 complete the procedure. He thus submits that now fresh proceeding is required to be undertaken under the new Act, by determining the value of the land as on the date of issuing first Notification. He relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Faizabad- Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad Vs. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022) with connected appeals.
07. Learned Advocate Mr. Palodkar for the MSETCL vehemently argued that the proceeding initiated under the old Act would not lapse in view of section 24(1)(A) of the new Act. His alternative submission is that the reference date for determining market value be taken as on 28.05.2009 i.e. the date on which actual possession was taken. Because of the inaction on the part of the Authorities, no burden can be put on the MSETCL. The MSETCL had already sent proposal in the year 2009 itself. For no reason, the Authorities did not take further action pursuant to the proposal. The conduct of the claimants needs to be seen. He further submits that there is stay granted by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2018 and it it because of that order, the proceeding is stalled. So at least from that date till now the claimants be held not entitled to get interest and statutory benefits. He invited attention to the consent letters (9) wp5305.18 given by the claimants themselves for acquisition of lands. He thus submits that the acquisition is not by way of compulsory acquisition. The inaction on the part of the Officers clearly shows that the Authorities are acting in collusion with the claimants and for this reason also the claimants should not be held entitled to get interest and statutory benefits for the said period. He places reliance upon the following judgments :-
(i) Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project.. Vs. Mahesh and Others (2022) 2 SCC 772.
(ii) Vitthal Rama Pawar (Katkari) and Ors. Vs. Dy.
Collector (Acquisition), Raigad Alibag & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 149.
(iii) Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Deepak Aggarwal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 512.
(iv) Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 477.
(v) Hori Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 129.
. It is submitted that the judgment in the case of Vitthal Rama Pawar (Supra) is stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 08.11.2024 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 45547/2024.
08. In view of the facts and submissions, this Court is called upon ( 10 ) wp5305.18 to answer following questions :-
i] Whether earlier proceeding under the old Act has lapsed in view of section 11-A of the old Act?
ii] Whether fresh proceeding is required to be taken under the new Act for acquisition of land?
iii] Whether for the purpose of determination of market rate, the date of taking actual possession of the land in 2009 can be considered?
09. By now it is well settled and is clear from the wording of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act that from the date of publication of section 9 Notice, if no award is passed within a period of two years, the proceeding automatically lapses. There is no any other way than to start proceeding afresh, if the land is to be acquired, in view of section 24 of the new Act, which reads as under :-
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the ( 11 ) wp5305.18 compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
Provided further that, in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation is lying deposited in a court or in any designated account maintained for this purpose on account of refusal or not coming forward for receiving compensation despite receipt of such notice under sub- section (2) of section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), shall be excluded. Also if the said land is mutated within three years after passing the award in the name of acquiring body, it shall be deemed that the possession of the land has been taken."
10. So far as judgment in the case of Executive Engineer, Gorikhurd Project (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that it does not support the proposition putforth by learned Advocate Mr. Palodkar. So far as judgment in the case of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure (supra), para No.47 is relied upon by the learned Advocate, which reads as under :-
47. To conclude, we hold that for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act. We further hold that when Clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act. However, only for the determination of ( 12 ) wp5305.18 compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied.
11. It is seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that where the proceeding is initiated under the old Act, same shall be treated as initiated on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in case where section 24(1)(a) of the Acquisition Act is applicable. It is further held that only for the purpose of determination of the compensation amount, the provisions of the new Act shall be applied, as is clear from wording of Section 24. In this view, submission of learned Advocate Mr. Palodkar cannot be accepted. This Court, however, finds that said order is passed in the facts of that case. In the present case, the facts are not shown to be identical. That order also appears to be passed by way of exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is not available to this Court.
12. So far as judgment in the case of Vitthal Rama Pawar (supra) is concerned, there was stay granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and in that view award could not be passed in time. Therefore, said judgment need not be considered for any purpose.
13. So far as judgment in the case of Competent Authority ( 13 ) wp5305.18 (supra) is concerned, para No.12 of the said judgment reads as below :-
"12. The aspect of possession of land having been taken by the Competent Authority, is an important issue for consideration in this case. Vesting of land in the Central Government has been held to be not in accordance with the law. The other statutory requirement which needs to be complied before taking possession is deposit of compensation. Under Section 3E(1) possession can be taken only after the land vests in the Central Government and the amount determined by the Competent Authority as compensation under Section 3G has been deposited under sub-section (1) of Section 3H. In the present case in view of an order dated 3rd April,2002 passed by the High Court final compensation could not be determined by the competent Authority. Therefore, there could not be a valid deposit of amount finally determined as required under Section 3E(1) of the Act, which means the possession could not have been taken. But the fact is that possession was taken on 19th February, 2003 on deposit of provisional amount of compensation. The NHAI had in fact applied for permission of court to take possession of the land under acquisition. But without any order being passed on that application, it hastened to take possession after giving only one day's notice when the Act requires 60 days notice. Moreover, the possession is to be taken through the Commissioner of Police or the Collector. This was not done. Neither of the three statutory requirements for taking possession were fulfilled. Thus taking of possession of the lands in the present case is in total violation of the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the acquiring authority submits that possession was taken on basis of oral observations of the court. This is a totally misconceived plea. Court orders are always in black and white. Oral orders are never passed. Moreover, this plea is wrong because the Division Bench observed in its order dated 27th March,2003 that it never dealt with question of possession. The result is that taking possession of the land sought to be acquired cannot be said to be in accordance with law in this case and does not improve matters for the NHAI."
14. Para No. 18 of the judgment in the case Hori Lal (supra) is as under :-
"18. As mentioned above, the High Court held that in the light of the stand taken by the State contending in their counter that the appropriate date for determining the market value of the appellant's acquired land would be the date, which is declared by the Central Government, i.e., "01.01.2014" and, therefore, the State would determine the compensation payable to the appellant accordingly. This order is not under challenge in these proceedings."
( 14 ) wp5305.18
15. So far as judgment in the case of Faizabad-Ayodhya (supra) is concerned, para No.12 reads as under :-
"12. The sum and substance of the aforesaid observations could be summarized as under:-
(i) The time of five years is provided to the authorities to take action, not to sleep over the matter;
(ii) Only in cases of lethargy or inaction and default on the part of the authorities and for no other reason lapse of acquisition can occur;
(iii) Lapse of acquisition takes place only in case of default by the authorities acquiring the land, not caused by any other reason or order of the court;
(iv) The additional compensation @ 12% provided under Section 69 of the Act, 2013 has been excluded from the period acquisition proceedings have been held up on account of the interim injunction order of any court;
(v) If it was not possible for the acquiring authorities, for any reason not attributable to them or the Government, to take requisite steps, the period has to be excluded;
(vi) In case the authorities are prevented by the court's order, obviously, as per the interpretation of the provisions such period has to be excluded;
(vii) The intent of the Act, 2013 is not to benefit landowners only.
The provisions of Section 24 by itself do not intend to confer benefits on litigating parties as such, while as per Section 114 of the Act, 2013 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the case has to be litigated as per the provisions of the Act, 1894.
(viii) It is not the intendment of the Act, 2013 that those who have assailed the acquisition process should get benefits of higher compensation as contemplated under Section 24;
(ix) It is not intended by the provisions that in case, the persons, who have litigated and have obtained interim orders from the Civil Courts by filing suits or from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should have the benefits of the provisions of the Act, 2013 except to the extent specifically provided under the Act, 2013;
(x) In cases where some landowners have chosen to take recourse to litigation and have obtained interim orders restraining taking of possession or orders of status quo, as a matter of practical reality it is not possible for the authorities or the Government to take possession or to make payment of compensation to the landowners. In several instances, such interim orders also have impeded the making of an award;
( 15 ) wp5305.18
(xi) However, so far as awards are concerned, the period provided for making of awards under the Act, 2013 (sic 1894 Act) could be excluded by virtue of Explanation to Section 11-A, which provided that in computing the period of two years, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded;
(xii) The litigation initiated by the landowners has to be decided on its own merits and the benefits of Section 24(2) should not be available to the litigants in a straightjacket manner. In case there is no interim order, they can get the benefits they are entitled to, not otherwise. Delays and dilatory tactics and sometimes wholly frivolous pleas cannot result in benefitting the landowners under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013;
(xiii) Any type of order passed by this Court would inhibit action on the part of the authorities to proceed further, when a challenge to acquisition is pending;
(xiv) Interim order of stay granted in one of the matters of the landowners would cause a complete restraint on the authorities to proceed further to issue declaration;
(xv) When the authorities are disabled from performing duties due to impossibility, it would be a sufficient excuse for them to save them from rigour of provisions of Section 24. A litigant may have a good or a bad cause, be right or wrong.
But he cannot be permitted to take advantage of a situation created by him by way of an interim order passed in his favour by the Court at his instance. Although provision of Section 24 does not discriminate between landowners, who are litigants or non-litigants and treat them differently with respect to the same acquisition, it is necessary to view all of them from the stand point of the intention of the Parliament. Otherwise, anomalous results may occur and provisions may become discriminatory in itself;
(xvi) The law does not expect the performance of the impossible; (xvii) An act of the court shall prejudice no man; (xviii) A party prevented from doing an act by certain circumstances beyond his control can do so at the first subsequent opportunity; (xix) When there is a disability to perform a part of the law, such a charge has to be excused. When performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute is rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons concerned have no control, it has to be taken as a valid excuse; (xx) The Court can under its inherent jurisdiction ex debito justitiae has a duty to mitigate the damage suffered by the defendants by the act of the Court;
( 16 ) wp5305.18 (xxi) No person can suffer from the act of Court and an unfair advantage of the interim order must be neutralised;
(xxii) No party can be permitted to take shelter under the cover of Court's order to put the other party in a disadvantageous position; (xxiii) If one has enjoyed under the Court's cover, that period cannot be included towards inaction of the authorities to take requisite steps under Section 24 as the State authorities would have acted and passed an award determining compensation but for the Court's order."
16. It is clear that if the proceeding is not completed within two years, prior to date of 01.01.2014 under the old Act, the proceeding stands lapsed. Only difference is that the time period for passing award is made one year from the earlier notification instead of two years provided under the old Act. In the present case, taking the dates as it is, it is clearly seen that though twice the proceeding was undertaken by issuing Notification under Section 4 and subsequent declaration under section 6, no immediate steps were taken. After notice under section 9 award could not be passed within two years from the date of notice and therefore earlier proceedings have lapsed. In view of section 24 of the new Act, now there is, no option, but to initiate proceeding afresh.
17. So far as determination of compensation is concerned, it needs to be considered as to whether submission of learned Advocate Mr. Palodkar can be accepted? This Court finds that in view of section 24 of the new Act, it is not permissible. The only question now is so far as ( 17 ) wp5305.18 alleged conduct of the claimants, though there is allegation that it is the claimants in whose collusion, the Authorities have not taken action in time is concerned, this Court finds that there is no material to substantiate this allegation. Even if the allegation is taken to be correct, no provision is pointed out authorizing the Authorities to grant compensation at the market rate prevalent on the date of taking over possession. So far as submission of not granting interest to the claimants for the period from 12.06.2018 i.e. the date on which stay was granted till today is concerned, only said prayer can be considered at the most.
18. In view of the above discussion, the question Nos. (i) & (ii) are answered in affirmative and question No. (iii) is answered in the negative.
19. Hence, following order :-
a) Writ Petition Nos. 5305 and 5311 of 2018 are allowed.
The Authorities are directed to initiate fresh proceeding within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today and complete the same. The Authorities are expected to act strictly in accordance with the law and henceforth not to commit any default in procedure.
( 18 ) wp5305.18
b) Writ Petition No. 6222 of 2018 is partly allowed. It is
only clarified that respondent Nos.6 to 11 in the said petition/(claimants) shall not be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits for the period from 12.06.2018 till today, as the proceeding is stalled because of interim order passed by this Court.
c) Rule made partly absolute in above terms.
d) At this stage this Court expresses displeasure towards
inaction on the part of the Authorities in allowing the earlier two proceedings to be lapsed. The Authorities are well aware of the proceedings. Nothing is coming on record as to what made the Authorities not to pass award within stipulated period. This action has resulted in loss of public exchequer. This Court would appreciate if the State holds enquiry against the erring officers and fixes liability at least to some extent, if not fully.
e) The writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/jan26/wp5305.18