Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 632 (BOM)

Ajinath 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. S.G. Sangle, waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 6. Service of Rule to respondent no.5 is dispensed with since the respondent no.5 is only a formal party. By consent of appearing parties taken up for hearing. 3. The land of the petitioners was required for a public purpose of construction of a village water tank. The respondents approached the petitioners for a consent for taking possession of the land even before the acquisition proceedings were commenced and / or completed. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent nos.4 and 6 (acquiring body) on 16th June 2005. Clause No.1 of the agreement states that the petitioners would be allowed to harvest only the existing crop but shall not be allowed to sow new crop. Clause No.2 states that the compensation for the period between the date of possession and the date of award shall be determined by the Collector. 4. According to the petitioners, possession of their land was taken over by the respondents on 16th June 2005. In paragraph No.1 of the affidavit in reply filed by Murlidhar s/o. Baburao Mhaske, Sub-Divisional Officer of the respondent no.5, it is stated that the possession of the petitioners' land was taken over on 16th June 2005. In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Shrirang s/o. Pandurang Tambe, Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition No. II, Beed, on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, he has not denied the statement made in the petition, that the possession of the petitioners' land was taken over on 16th June 2005. In the circumstances, we accept the uncontroverted statement made in paragraph No.4 of the petition, that the possession of the petitioners' land was taken over on 16th June 2005. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the possession of the land was taken over and though they were promised that the compensation would be paid to them, proceedings for acquisition have not been commenced and compensation is not paid to them. 6. Right to property is a constitutional right conferred by Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the possession of the land was taken over and though they were promised that the compensation would be paid to them, proceedings for acquisition have not been commenced and compensation is not paid to them. 6. Right to property is a constitutional right conferred by Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners could not have been deprived of their property without payment of compensation and in accordance with the law. The petitioners have been deprived of their property without payment of compensation and without following procedure established by law for acquisition of property. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to a mandamus directing the respondents to acquire their land and pay them compensation. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that after the petition was filed a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been published on 12th March 2012. Obviously the said notification has been published after our order dated 7th March 2012, wherein we have noted the assurance given by the Government that they would issue a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within two weeks. Learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks to explain the delay in issuing of the notification by saying that the proposal for acquisition was sent by the respondent nos.4 to 6 very late and was received by the Collector's office only on 14th February 2012. 8. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the relevant date for determination of market value of the land for determination of the compensation is the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant date for determining market value of the land in the present case would, therefore, be 12th March 2012. The price of the land in the year 2012 would be far higher than the price which would have been payable to the petitioners, if the proceedings for acquisition were initiated in the year 2005 when possession of their land was taken over with their consent. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the Collector to make an inquiry to determine the officer or officers responsible for the delay in issuing Section 4 Notification and recover the difference in the compensation (between 12th March 2012 and 16th June 2005) from such officer or officers for not taking appropriate steps for commencing the acquisition proceedings. 9. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the Collector to make an inquiry to determine the officer or officers responsible for the delay in issuing Section 4 Notification and recover the difference in the compensation (between 12th March 2012 and 16th June 2005) from such officer or officers for not taking appropriate steps for commencing the acquisition proceedings. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) We direct the Collector, Beed, to complete the acquisition proceedings expeditiously and publish an award expeditiously. In the meanwhile, the Collector shall pay to the petitioners, 80 % of the value, as per the ready reckoner applicable in March 2012, to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today. The balance amount shall be paid within eight weeks of the pronouncement of the award. (ii) The Collector shall also make an inquiry and determine the difference between the market price as on 12th March 2012, when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been issued, and the market price of the land as on 16th June 2005, when the possession was taken over from the petitioners. The Collector shall also inquire and decide as to the officer or officers who are responsible for the delay in issuing Section 4 notification. After giving the concerned officer/s opportunity of hearing, the Collector shall recover the difference in the market price as on 12th March 2012, and the market price as on 16th June 2005, from the officers responsible for the delay so that no loss is caused to the exchequer. The Collector shall also determine the rental compensation payable to the petitioners between the period, 16th June 2005 i.e. date of possession till date of the award and pay the same to the petitioners, within three months of the passing of the award. 10. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above.