Bombay High Court
Shrikant Shankarrao Daulatkar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 22 June, 2015
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: V.A. Naik, Prasanna B. Varale
1 220615wp1923.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1923 OF 2014
SHRIKANT SHANKARRAO DAULATKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAH., THRU. ITS SECY., REVENUE & FOREST DEPTT., AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A. D. Sonak, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr. S. G. Jagtap, Advocates for respondent no.3
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK and
PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2015.
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013' for the sake of brevity).
The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to re-determine and grant the compensation to the petitioners under the Act of 2013. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to ensure the rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioners under the Act of 2013.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus :-
The land in survey Nos.44 and 403 of mouza Kinhi was owned by Shankarrao Daulatkar. It is the case of the petitioners that there was a partition in the family and ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:38:12 ::: 2 220615wp1923.14.odt land survey No.44 was partitioned between the petitioner no.1 and his two brothers Jaikant and Prashant and land survey no.403 was partitioned between the petitioner Nos.2 to 5. The State Government decided to acquire the land of the petitioners for the Lakhmapur project.
The Section 4 notification was issued on 05.06.2008 and the Section 6 notification was issued on 16.10.2008 The Land Acquisition Officer made the Award on 09.07.2009 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since, the compensation towards the acquisition of the land is not paid to the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court, seeking compensation under the Act of 2013.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners would be entitled to receive the compensation under the Act of 2013 in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the same. It is stated that the Proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 clearly postulates granting of compensation under the new Act to all the beneficiaries specified in the Section 4 notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if the compensation for the majority land holders is not deposited in their account. It is submitted that though, the Award was made on 09.07.2009, the compensation in respect of the majority of land holders has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries. It is stated that in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the petitioners would be entitled to receive compensation under the Act of 2013.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:38:12 ::: 3 220615wp1923.14.odt respondent nos.1 and 2 that the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would not apply to the case of the petitioners as the Award is not made five years or more, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. It is submitted that the Act of 2013 was brought into force on 01.01.2014 and since the Award was made on 09.07.2009, the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the Act would not apply. It is submitted that the petitioners were called by the Special Land Acquisition Officer time and again to receive the compensation, but they refused to accept the same. It is submitted that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are ready and willing to pay the compensation to the petitioners, as determined by the Award, dated 09.07.2009 along with the other benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, immediately.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that after the Award was made on 09.07.2009, the respondent no.3 deposited the compensation payable to the petitioners on 24.11.2009 with the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is stated that the petitioners have not accepted the compensation though they were called to receive the same. It is stated that the petitioners are not entitled to seek compensation under the Act of 2013, more so when the Award was not made five years or more, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the provisions of the Act of 2013, it appears that the petitioners would not be entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013. On a reading of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:38:12 ::: 4 220615wp1923.14.odt provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, it appears that the provisions of Section 24 (2), to which the Proviso is appended, would apply only to the Awards that are made five years of more, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. The Award was made on 09.07.2009 and the Act of 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014. The Award was not made five years or more, prior to the commencement of the Act on 01.01.2014. Since, the Proviso appears to have been appended to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the petitioners would not be ig entitled to seek compensation provisions of the new Act. The object of the Proviso is to under the provide to the beneficiaries, who have already received the compensation under the Act of 1894, higher compensation under the Act of 2013, if the compensation in respect of the majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries. The Proviso would come into play only if the Award is made five years or more, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. For example, if an Award is made just a day before the commencement of the Act of 2013 or a fortnight before its commencement, there is no occasion for the State Government to deposit the amount of compensation in the accounts of the beneficiaries as certain procedure under the Act of 1894 like issuance of notice to the claimants to receive the compensation and securing necessary documents in respect of their identification, would be required to be undergone. Under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after making the Award under Section 11, the Collector is required to tender payment of the awarded compensation to the persons entitled to receive it and if they do not consent to receive it, the Collector is required ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:38:12 ::: 5 220615wp1923.14.odt to deposit the compensation in the Court. Also, it is clear from the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) that where the Award is made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as if the Act was not repealed. The provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 24 carve out an exception to the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 and create a class of acquisitions in respect of the Awards, which have been made five years or more, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but where the physical possession of the land is not taken or the compensation has not been paid, for the purpose of lapsing. The Proviso, being applicable to the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 24, the condition precedent for seeking compensation under the Act of 2013 would be the making of the Award five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. In the instant case, the Award is not made five years or more, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. The petitioners would, therefore, not be entitled to the compensation under the Act of 2013. Though, the petitioners are not entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013, since, the petitioners have not received the compensation determined under the Act of 1894 till date, it would be necessary to direct the respondents to pay the same to the petitioners along with the other benefits flowing from the provisions of the Act of 1894, within a time frame.
7. Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation in terms of the Award dated 09.07.2009 to the petitioners within a period of four weeks. Mr. Sonak, the learned ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:38:12 ::: 6 220615wp1923.14.odt Assistant Government Pleader states that the petitioners may not approach the respondents to receive the compensation and there would be difficulty in making the payment. In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we direct the respondents to deposit the amount payable to the petitioners in this Court within a period of four weeks. It is needless to mention that the petitioners would be entitled to withdraw the same. Order accordingly. No costs.
ig JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:38:12 :::