Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 630 (BOM)

Balbhim v. State of Maharashtra

2012-03-21

D.G.KARNIK, S.B.DESHMUKH

body2012
Judgment D.G. KARNIK, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. B.V. Wagh, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. Learned Counsel, Mr. H.I. Pathan, instructed by learned Counsel, Mr. P.P. Dama, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent no.4. By consent taken up for hearing. 3. The petitioner is the owner of the lands bearing Gat Nos. 1049 and 1066 situated at village Pargaon Ghumara (Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed). Part of the land of the petitioner was required for the public purpose of construction of a percolation tank. The respondent no.4, therefore, approached the petitioner and requested him to give consent for acquisition of the land and also to hand over possession of the land. He also promised to the petitioner that the compensation would be paid to the petitioner for the acquired land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his consent, a copy of which is annexed to the affidavit in reply dated 13th March 2012, filed on behalf of the respondent no.4. In the affidavit he has stated that possession of the land was taken over by private negotiation on 16th February 2003. In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Narayan s/o. Shimantrao Ubale, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Minor Irrigation, Beed, on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, they have also stated that the possession of the petitioner's land was taken on 16th February 2003. We accordingly accept the case of the petitioner that possession of his land was taken over from him on 16th February 2003. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though possession of the land was taken on 16th February 2003, formal procedure for acquisition of his land was not commenced and he was not paid any compensation. It appears that after our order dated 1st March 2012 passed in this petition, the respondents woke up and have sent the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for publication in the Government Gazette on 13th January 2012. Though the affidavit of the respondent nos.2 and 3, dated 30th January 2011, does not specify the actual date of publication, we assume that the publication must have been made soon after 13th January 2012, when the respondent no.2 sent it to the Government Press for publication in the official gazette. Though the affidavit of the respondent nos.2 and 3, dated 30th January 2011, does not specify the actual date of publication, we assume that the publication must have been made soon after 13th January 2012, when the respondent no.2 sent it to the Government Press for publication in the official gazette. As formal proceedings for acquisition of the land of the petitioner have been commenced with issuance of a notification dated 13th January 2012, the respondents are required to complete the acquisition proceedings expeditiously. Taking into consideration the long lapse of time between the date of possession and the date of issuance of a notification, we direct the respondents to complete the acquisition proceedings as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within two years hereof. 5. There are two more issues required to be addressed. Firstly, the consent given by the petitioner clearly states that the respondents would pay to the petitioner rental compensation from the date of possession till the date of payment. In our view, the petitioner is undoubtedly entitled to the rental compensation. The second issue is regarding the date with reference to which the market price is to be determined and paid. It is settled principle that the price is to be determined with reference to date of publication of Section 4 notification which appears to be 13th January 2012. We accordingly direct that the petitioner would be paid compensation as per the market value as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 13th January 2012. 6. The petitioner was dispossessed in the year 2003 and he was promised that the acquisition proceedings would be commenced soon. It is undisputed fact that the market price of the land would have gone several folds between the years 2003 and 2012, when the notification under Section 4 was published. Loss would, therefore, be caused to the exchequer as market price prevailing in January 2012 is required to be paid and same would be much higher than the market price prevailing in the year 2003. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the Collector to make an inquiry and determine who is responsible for the delay which has resulted in payment of higher compensation to the petitioner. The difference in the compensation shall be recovered from the officer or officers who are responsible for the delay in issuing Section 4 notification. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the Collector to make an inquiry and determine who is responsible for the delay which has resulted in payment of higher compensation to the petitioner. The difference in the compensation shall be recovered from the officer or officers who are responsible for the delay in issuing Section 4 notification. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to complete the acquisition proceedings initiated by them by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in January 2012, expeditiously and pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondents shall pay 80 % of the estimated compensation as per the ready reckoner applicable in January 2012, to the petitioner within twelve weeks hereof. The balance amount of the compensation, as may be determined in the award, shall be paid to the petitioner within eight weeks of the publication of the award. The respondent no.2 Collector shall hold an inquiry as to the difference between the market price as on the date of taking over possession i.e. 16th February 2003, and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 13th January 2012, and shall also hold an inquiry as to the officer or officers who are responsible for the delay in issuing Section 4 notification, and recover the difference in the market price from the officer or officers responsible for the delay. The respondent no.2 shall also determine and pay to the petitioner the rental compensation for the period between 16th February 2003 and 13th January 2012, when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, within twelve weeks from today. 8. Rule is made absolute in the terms indicated above.