Bombay High Court
Shri. Ashok Bapu Chougule vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 September, 2018
Bench: A.A. Sayed, S.C. Gupte
k 1/4 35 wp 11253.17 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11253 OF 2017
...
Shri Ashok Bapu Chougule ....Petitioner
V/S
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
...
Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the Petitioner.
Ms. Geetanjali Shinde, AGP for Respondents/State.
...
CORAM : A.A. SAYED &
S.C. GUPTE, JJ.
DATE : 12 SEPTEMBER 2018.
ORDER:
1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondent-State say that the issue involved in this Petition concerns interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act of 2013" for short).
2 On 21 February 2018, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited, (2018) 3 SCC 585 in paragraph 9 issued the following directions:
"9. Taking all this into consideration, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if in the interim and pending a final decision on making a reference (if at all) to a larger 1/4 k 2/4 35 wp 11253.17 as.doc Bench, the High Courts be requested not to deal with any cases relating to the interpretation of or concerning Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Secretary General will urgently communicate this order to the Registrar General of every High Court so that our request is complied with.
(emphasis supplied) 3 On 6 March 2018, in Indore Development Authority vs. Shyam Verma, (2018) 3 SCC 405 the 5-Judge Constitution Bench which was constituted to consider the correctness of the divergent views on the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 observed in paragraphs 8 to 10 as follows:
"8. Keeping in view the aforesaid orders, it was thought appropriate by the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitutional Bench to deal with all the issues in an apposite manner, and that is how these matters have been placed before us.
9. The learned Counsel for the parties argued at some length and requested for framing questions of law. We think it appropriate to state, this Bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered 2/4 k 3/4 35 wp 11253.17 as.doc in Indore Development Authority. Be it noted, the learned Counsel for the parties would be at liberty to file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing.
10. We would have proceeded for hearing of these matters, but as we are in the midst of hearing of another Constitution Bench matter, we think it appropriate to list these matters after conclusion of hearing of Item No.506 i.e. WP(Crl.) No.76 of 2016. However, the matters shall remain in the cause-list."
4 It is necessary to make a reference to the Maharashtra Act No.XXXVII of 2018 by which the Act of 2013 was amended and which came into force on 26 April 2018 after having received assent of the President. Apart from other amendments in Act of 2013, a proviso has been inserted in Section 24 which changes the purport of Section 24 as far as its applicability in the State of Maharashtra is concerned. Section 24 will now have to be interpreted in light of the amendment which came into force on 26 April 2018 as applicable in the State of Maharashtra. 5 Be that as it may, in view of the directions of the Supreme Court in G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited as quoted above and pending consideration of the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, propriety would 3/4 k 4/4 35 wp 11253.17 as.doc demand that we adjourn the Petition. The parties are at liberty to seek necessary clarification from the Supreme Court, as regards proceeding with the hearing of the Petition, if they so desire. Else, the parties may mention the matter for preponement of the date after the decision of the Constitution Bench.
6 List the Petition on 10 October 2018.
(S.C. GUPTE, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)
katkam
Sudarshan Digitally signed by Sudarshan
Rajalingam Katkam
Rajalingam Date: 2018.09.19 12:00:08
Katkam +0530
4/4