Prakash Udesing Patil And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6822 OF 2015 Bharat S/o Badhu Patil Age 67 years, Occ. Agril, Surendra S/o Gokul Patil Age 42 years, Occ. Agril, Narpal S/o Sudam Patil Age 36 years, Occ. Agril Ramansing S/o Shankarsing Patil Age 52 years, Occ. Agril Dhanjay S/o Ramansing Patil Age 23 years, Occ. Agril Sanjay s/o Kashinath Koli Age 37 years, Occ. Agril.

Bhagwan S/o Eka Koli Age 55 years, Occ. Agril.

Ravindra S/o Rajaram Dhangar Age 50 years, Occ. Agril, Sanjiv S/o Rajaram Dhangar Age 52 years, Occ. Agril Chandradip S/o Suratsing Patil Age 58 years, Occ. Agril Shardabai W/o Chandradip Patil Age 52 years, Occ. Household Pramilabai W/o Premsing Patil Age 58 years, Occ. Household Nandlal s/o Ukhardu Patil Age 49 years, Occ. Agril

{2} Pundlik S/o Udesing Patil Age 54 years, Occ. Agril Vidyabai W/o Pundlik Patil Age 48 years, Occ. Agril Kalusing S/o Udesing Patil Age 57 years, Occ. Agril Bharat S/o Zagdu Patil Age 52 years, Occ. Agril Pravin S/o Pralhad Koli Age 40 years, Occ. Agril Pradhan S/o Sakharam Koli Age 60 years, Occ. Agril Dhanraj S/o Bhagwan Koli Age 28 years, Occ. Agril Rukhmabai w/o Barku Dhangar Age 68 years, Occ. Agril Vijaysing S/o Kisansing Patil Age 56 years, occ. Agril Ranjnabai w/o Vijaysing Patil Age 50 years, Occ. Agril Subhash S/o Ukhardu Patil Age 53 years, Occ. Agril Lilabai W/o Nago Bhoi Age 45 years, Occ. Agril Vittal S./o Magan Koli Age 50 years, Occ. Agril Bhatubai w/o Nadusing Girase Age 42 years, Occ. Agril Prakash S/o Bhagwan Sonar Age 57 years, Occ. Agril

{3} Manisha w/o Kalusing Patil Age 30 years, Occ. Agril Dattary S/o Magan Koli Age 65 years, Occ. Agril Ravinra S/o Jgnnath Patil Age 50 years, Occ. Agril Ranvir S/o Vilaychand Patil Age 55 years, Occ. Service All r/o Virwade, Tq. Chopda Dist. Jalgaon.

Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra through The Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

Collector of Jalgaon Sub. Divisional Officer @ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Amalner dist. Jalgaon.

Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2.

Upper Tapi Project (Hatnur) Jalgaon.

The Executive Engineer, Medium Project, Division Jalgaon.

Respondents Mr. P.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8494 OF 2015

{4} Prakash Udesing Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Bhagwan Soma Bhil Age Major, Occ. Agril Nandkishor Namdeo Dhangar Age Major, Occ. Agril Pandharinath Harchand Koli Age Major, Occ. Agril Mangal Harchand Koli Age Major, Occ. Agril Radhesham Gandas Barela Age Major, Occ. Agril Sitaram Gandas Barela Age Major, Occ. Agril Bharat Mansing Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Tulshiram Mansing Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Krushnasing Mansing Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Rajkorbai Jagdish Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Kiran Sanjay Kakhare Age Major, Occ. Agril Deoram Suraj Koli Age Major, Occ. Agril Santosh Joharmal Dhangar Age Major, Occ. Agril Kavita Gajendrasing Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril

{5} Shantaram Devkinandan Koli Age Major, Occ. Agril Gopal Durgadas Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Himanshu Sangramsing Sisodia Age Major, Occ. Agril Nirmalabai Chandrasing Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Bhimabai Bhojesing Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Arun vitthal Dhangar Age Major, Occ. Agril Suresh Gulab Dhangar Age Major, Occ. Agril Bhartibai Sanjay Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Sahebrao Daulat Patil Age Major, Occ. Agril Avinash Bhagwan Dhangar Age Major, Occ. Agril Kiran Suresh Thakur Age Major, Occ. Agril Shivaji Soma Dhangar Age Major, Occ. Agril All R/o Virwade, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon.

Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary,

{6} Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

The District Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

The Sub Divisional Officer and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Amalner, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.

Respondents Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : R.M.BORDE & P.R.BORA, JJ.

DATE : 29th September, 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J):

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. Petitioners are objecting to the determination of compensation by the Sub Divisional Officer while declaring award on 31.03.2015 in respect of acquired property belonging to the petitioners.

Agricultural lands belonging to the petitioners have been acquired for public project i.e. right bank canal of Gul Medium Project. A preliminary notification in respect of acquisition of the properties came to be issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 29.03.2012. The Land Acquisition Officer, after completion of procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, declared the award on 31.03.2015

{7} determining amount of compensation in accordance with provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Petitioners contend that though award is declared under the new enactment, determination of compensation by the Sub Divisional Officer is not in accordance with Section 26 of the said Act. Section 26 of the said Act and more particularly subsection (2) thereof prescribes that the market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the first schedule. The first schedule of the Act of 2013 prescribes the factor ranging between "1.00" to "2.00" based upon distance of the project from urban area, as may be notified by the appropriate Government in the case of acquisition of properties falling within rural area.

It is not in dispute that the acquired properties are situate in rural area. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, while determining amount of compensation, has applied "1.10" as the relevant factor in consonance with Section 26 of the Act of 2013. Petitioners point out that there was a challenge raised to the prescription of factor "1.10" so far as acquisition of properties situate in rural area is concerned, in Writ Petition No.4274 of 2014. The aforesaid writ petition came to be allowed and notification directing fixation of factor "1.10", so far as it relates to rural area, came to be quashed and set aside and this Court directed the State to prescribe relevant factor in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013 by issuing separate notification in that regard. It has been pointed out that the State Government has issued notification on

{8} 26.05.2015 whereunder relevant factor has been prescribed at "2.00" in respect of acquisition of properties falling within rural area. Petitioners, thus, contend that the Sub Divisional Officer ought to have applied factor "2.00" while determining amount of compensation under the award declared on 31.03.2015. It does appear that the Sub Divisional Officer has committed an error apparent on the face of record in prescribing "1.10" as the factor for determining amount of compensation of the properties situate in rural area and acquired for public purposes. It was not open for the Sub Divisional Officer to apply factor "1.10" prescribed under the notification which has been quashed by this Court while dealing with Writ Petition No.4274 of 2014 by an order dated 09.03.2015.

In this view of the matter, necessary consequence is that Respondent Sub Divisional Officer needs to be directed to redetermine amount of compensation payable to the petitioners and all other claimants covered by the said award by applying "2.00" (two) as the factor prescribed under the notification issued by the State Government on 26.05.2015 and it is accordingly directed. The exercise of redetermination of amount of compensation by making application of factor "2.00" (two) prescribed under the notification dated 26.5.2015 shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from today.

On redetermination of amount of compensation by applying factor "2.00" (two) in respect of the claimants covered under the award, amount shall be disbursed within a period of four months from the date of redetermination of

{9} amount of compensation under the orders passed by this Court in the instant petitions.

Learned Additional Government Pleader points out that the claimants have been paid compensation in accordance with determination made by the Sub Divisional Officer by applying factor "1.10" prescribed under earlier notification. The additional amount, to which petitioners/claimants would be entitled, shall be paid to them in accordance with the directions as above. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

P.R.BORA R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp682215