Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The petitioner contends that prior to the issuance of the aforesaid statutory notifications as the petitioner's land was subject matter of mass acquisition, following the pattern being adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and/or a fait accompli, she voluntarily handed over the possession of her land admeasuring 1H 12 R to the State Government on 19 September 1990 which being recorded in a formal affidavit dated 19 September 1990 taken from the petitioner by respondent No.1, which we would refer hereafter. This was also reflected in Mutation Entry No. 729 as borne by the revenue records. Admittedly, the petitioner was not paid the land acquisition compensation. The reason appears to be that the petitioner hailing from a rural area was certainly not a person well versed with her legal rights, that her land could only be taken away or her ownership divested only by following due process of law, and on payment of compensation. The petitioner appears to have bowed down before the might of the State Officers and handed over the possession of her land, without an award much less a farthing under any award. It was a legitimate expectation that a land acquisition award would be published, or in a manner known to law, an adequate compensation would be paid to the petitioner. In these circumstances, on 3 December 2021, petitioner applied to the Deputy Collector, (Rehabilitation) for payment of compensation. On such application, the Deputy Collector _______________ 2 May 2025 WP [email protected] reported that the petitioner's land was already allotted to the project affected persons. It was acknowledged that the petitioner's land was not included in the land acquisition award, indicating that the process of acquisition of land was not completed. A copy of the report in that regard dated 2 February 2022 of the Deputy Collector is annexed to the petition, the contents of which are required to be noted which read thus:-

The Applicant vide the above-referred application on the above- mentioned subject, has requested to grant as early as possible and as per today's market rate, maximum consideration in respect of the land bearing Gat number 156, area admeasuring 1.12.00 hectares Are, situated at village Vhannur, Tal. Kagal, District Kolhapur, voluntarily given into possession.
In pursuance thereof, on verifying the records of this Office, the below-mentioned facts are noticed.
The land of my ownership, mentioned in Column No.5 from out of the area of the land bearing Survey Number / Gat Number mentioned hereinbelow is required by the Government for Public Usage i.e. for rehabilitation of the dam-affected persons, and for that purpose, I am ready to voluntarily sell the said land to the Government for an appropriate lawful price as per the provisions of the law. Moreover, today, I am voluntarily handing over the advance possession of the said land to the Collector and Deputy Director, Rehabilitation (Land), Kolhapur.

I agree that the area mentioned in Column No.5 under the aforesaid Paragraph No. 1 is an approximate area. Date: 19.09.1990. 

      BEFORE ME,                       Sd/- Sumitra Shridhar Khane.
      (Signature Illegible)            Signature/Thumb impression of
      Rehabilitation Officer,          the Owner of the Land.
      Doodhganga Project,
      Kolhapur."
                                                       (emphasis supplied)

34. From a bare reading of the aforesaid affidavit, it is quite clear that although the petitioner voluntarily surrendered the possession of the land, she never gave up her right to receive compensation as clearly seen from her voluntary affidavit (supra). These facts make it clear that the petitioner became landless, in as much as, the petitioner's right to enjoy the land of her ownership has been deprived and that too without following the due process of law. It requires no elaboration that in depriving the petitioner of her land and taking away the petitioner's ownership and by allotting the land to third parties, has amounted to a gross violation of petitioner's constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law. In the event, the ownership of the petitioner's land was to be taken away, certainly, the petitioner was required to be compensated in a manner known to law and without adhering to the doctrine of due process, that is the petitioner being paid compensation, further steps to allot the land to third parties / project affected persons could never have been resorted leaving the acquisition incomplete, even if, the petitioner was to voluntarily surrender the land.