Bombay High Court
Dayaram Bhondu Koche And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 21 December, 2016
Author: B.R.Gavai
Bench: B.R.Gavai
1 wp3447.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3447 OF 2015
1. Dayaram Bhondu Koche,
Aged Adult.
2. Ruplata Tukaram Koche,
Aged Adult.
3. Dhiraj Madhukar Koche,
Aged adult.
4. Sumedh Tulsidas Koche.
5. Smt. Sheela Tulshidas Koche,
Aged adult.
6. Bhimrao Dakram Koche,
Aged adult.
7. Mohan s/o. Shivshankar Nandanwar,
Aged about 55 years.
8. Bandu s/o. Shivshankar Nandanwar,
Aged about 50 years.
9. Virendra Laxmanrao Gabhane,
Aged adult.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::
2 wp3447.15.odt
10.Raghunath s/o. Tukaram Bhiwagade,
Aged 62 years.
11.Smt.Shanta wd/o. Anandrao Bhiwagade,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. Household
work.
12.Ghanshyam Baburao Bhure,
Aged adult.
13.Saraswatabai wd/o. Baburao Bhure,
Aged adult.
14.Ganesh Shivshankar Bhure,
Aged adult.
15.Ramesh Gangaram Koche,
Aged adult.
16.Jaitura Sitaram Koche,
Aged adult.
17.Babita wd/o. Arun Koche,
Aged adult.
18.Asok Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
19.Shankar Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
20.Ishwar Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
21.Sadashiv Shriram Tambulkar,
Aged adult.
22.Prabhu Mahadeo Lute,
Aged adult.
23.Vivek Budhaji Gajbhiye,
Aged adult.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::
3 wp3447.15.odt
24.Lekhram Bakaram Motghare,
Aged adult.
25.Ramlal Vithoba Mate,
Aged adult.
26.Malchand Hiraman Babre,
Aged adult.
27.Namdeo Chokoba Thaokar,
Aged adult.
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, 12 to 14,
15 to 17 are Agriculturists, r/o.
Mangalpande Ward, Bhandara.
Petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 22
to 25 are Agriculturists and 27 are
r/o. Village Bela, Post Bela, Tq. And
Distt. Bhandara.
Petitioner no.9 is agriculturist and
r/o. Rajgopalachari Ward, Bhandara,
Maharashtra.
Petitioner Nos. 18 to 21 are
agriculturists and r/o. Pindkepar,
Post Bela, Tq. and Distt. Bhandara,
Maharashtra. .......... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary.
Revenue Department
(Rehabilitation), Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::
4 wp3447.15.odt
2. The District Collector,
Bhandara, Tq. and Distt.
Bhandara.
3. The District Rehabilitation Officer,
Collector Office, Bhandara,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer
and Sub-Divisional Officer,
Bhandara.
5. Executive Engineer,
Gosekhurd Rehabilitation Division,
Ambadi, Tq. and Distt.
Bhandara. .......... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr.K.B.Zingarde, Advocate with Mr.PKS Mishra,
Advocate and Mr.U.P.Deopujari, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr.S.M.Ukey, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr.S.G.Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
_____________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 21.12.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.R.Gavai, J) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::5 wp3447.15.odt
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing and setting aside the Award dt.17.11.2010, under which the compensation as payable to the petitioners came to be determined in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC Act").
3. The land of the petitioners are acquired for Gosikhurd project. Notification under Section 4 of the LAC Act was declared on 16.2.2008. The Awards u/s. 11 of the LAC Act came to be issued on 17.11.2010. The petitioners have not disputed the factum regarding acquisition of their lands.
The only contention raised in the petition is that, in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"), the petitioners are entitled for determination of compensation as per the provisions of the 2013 Act.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::6 wp3447.15.odt
4. The Division Bench of this Court (comprising of B.P.Dharmadhikari, J and V.M.Deshpande, J) vide Judgment and Order dt.2.3.2016 had diferred with the view taken earlier by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikant Shankarrao Daulatkar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.1923 of 2014, decided on 22.6.2015 and as such, referred the matter to the Larger Bench for determination of the issue as to whether the petitioner's land would be entitled to compensation as per the 2013 Act or not.
5. Since the learned Judges had not framed the issue to be determined by the Division Bench in the referral order, the Larger Bench had framed the following issue :
"Whether proviso to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is also applicable to the awards which are covered under Clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act ?"::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::
7 wp3447.15.odt
6. The Larger Bench vide order dt.5.12.2016 had held that the proviso to Section 24 of the 2013 Act is also applicable to the Awards which are covered under clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. It was held by the Larger Bench that all such beneficiaries whose names are specified in the notification u/s.4 of the LAC Act and in case of which, the Awards have been passed within a period of five years prior to the date of commencement of the 2013 Act and wherein the compensation as construed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and Others reported in 2014 (3) SCC 183 is not paid to the majority of beneficiaries would also be entitled to the compensation as per the 2013 Act.
7. After reference is answered by the Larger Bench, the present matter is listed before us for deciding it in accordance with the answer given by the Full Bench.
Undisputedly, the Award in the case of the petitioners herein is passed within a period of five year from the ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 ::: 8 wp3447.15.odt date on which the 2013 Act commenced. It is also not in dispute that, out of 35 beneficiaries, the compensation is paid only to five beneficiaries. It could thus be seen that the compensation is not paid to 30 beneficiaries, which is undisputedly a majority figure in the figure of 35. As such, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed.
The petitioners would be entitled to compensation as per the 2013 Act.
The impugned Award dt.17.11.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside.
8. The matter is remitted back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhandara for re-determining the compensation payable to all the beneficiaries finding names in Section 4 notification in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. It shall be done within a period of three months from today.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Jaiswal
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2016 00:59:27 :::