Dilip Sheshrao Nagpure And Others v. The State Of Maha. Irrigation Department, Thr. Its Sec. Mantralaya, Mumbai And Others
2025:BHC-NAG:4008-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4199 OF 2024
1) Dilip Sheshrao Nagpure, Aged 52 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, R/o C/o. Pimpalkhuta, Taluka Babhulgaon,
2) Dilip Pandurang Kale, Aged 60 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, R/o C/o. Pimpalkhuta, Taluka Babhulgaon,
3) Indubai Bhaurao Wankhede, Aged 70 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
4) Lilabai Manohar Ghode,
5) Mangesh Narayan Dhoke, Aged 38 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
6) Manoj Narayan Dhoke, Aged 48 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
7) Nandkishor Narayan Dhoke, Aged 60 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
8) Nitin Narayan Dhoke, Aged 48 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
9) Vitthal Bala Ghongale (Dead) through his Legal Heir Amrut Vitthal Ghongale, Aged 68 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
10) Vitthal Parasram Kale,
11) Vasant Keshrao Raut, Aged 65 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
12) Amrut Manikrao Okare (Dead) through his Legal Heir Vilas Amrut Okare,
13) Manohar Namdev Munjewar, Aged 44 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
14) Nana Namdeo Munjewar, Aged 68 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
15) Arun Keshravrao Jadhav, Aged 70 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
16) Triguna Maroti Jadhav, Aged 65 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
17) Udebhan Karu Rangari, Aged 65 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
18) Panjab Ramchandra Saratkar (Dead) through his Legal Heir Narayan Panjab Saratkar, Aged 63 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
19) Bajirao Dama Maraskolhe, Aged 68 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
20) Bhimraoji Dajiba Mane (Dead) through his Legal Heir Someshwar Bhimraoji Mane, Aged 45 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
21) Bhimrao Balwant Nagpure (Dead) through his Legal Heir Rajendra Bhimrao Nagpure,
22) Bisan Shravan Sahare, Aged 64 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
23) Chintaman Damadu Thanekar (Dead) through his Legal Heir Manohar Chintaman Thanekar, Aged 54 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
24) Eknath Mahadev Jadhav (Dead) through his Legal Heir Ajay Eknath Jadhav,
25) Indubai Suresh Thavre (Dead) through her Legal Heir 25a) Sangeeta Anil Nagpure, 25b) Anita Dilip Ingale, 25c) Jyotsana Mangesh Devarkar, Aged 48 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
26) Janardan Zango Jadhav (Dead) through his Legal Heir Pralhad Janardan Jadhav, Aged 63 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
27) Kisan Madgu Meshram, Aged 75 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
28) Lilabai Shamrao Kamble (Dead) through her legal Heir, Shridhar Shyamrao Kamble, Aged 60 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
29) Maroti Shravan Sahare, Aged 62 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
30) Murlidhar Babarao Kanse, Aged 63 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
31) Namdev Damadu Thanekar (Dead) through his Legal Heir Gajanan Namdev Thanekar,
32) Bhaurao Balwant Nagpure, Aged 80 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
33) Parvata Shankar Ghongade, Aged 80 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
34) Prabhakar Rajaram Ghongade, Aged 70 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
35) Rajendra Haridas Nagpure, Aged 63 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
36) Ramesh Keshav Ghongade (Dead) through his Legal Heir Gajanan Ramesh Ghongade Aged 52 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
37) Sanjay Omkar Bonde, Aged 58 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
38) Suresh Tukaram Sahare,
39) Suvarna Sanjay Bansod, Aged 60 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
40) Ramdas Mahadev Shrirame, Aged 62 years, Occ. - Agriculturist, ....
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Irrigation Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Collector, Yavatmal.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, and Deputy Collector, Bembla Project, Yavatmal.
4) The Executive Engineer, Bembala Project Department, Yavatmal, Tahsil and District Yavatmal.
.... RESPONDENTS ________________________________________________________________ Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Ms. M.V. Bhabhulkar, Counsel h/f. Mr. M.A. Kadu, Counsel for respondent No.4.
________________________________________________________________ CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 16-04-2025 JUDGMENT : (Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the counsel for the parties.
2.
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 09-02-2023 passed by respondent No.3-The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy Collector, Bembla Project, Yavatmal, thereby rejected the application filed by the petitioners-land owners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act of 1894') based on judgment dated 17-09-2019 in Land Acquisition Case No.425/2025 and judgment dated 15-11-2022 in Land Acquisition Case No.336/2015.
3.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgment dated 20-02-2024 passed in Writ Petition No.2495/2023 (Gunvanta Maroti Mohod and others V. State of Maharashtra and others) and, therefore, he submitted to dispose of the petition in terms of what has been held in the said judgment.
In response, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 have neither disputed the said fact nor the mandate laid down in the said judgment. On the contrary, it is conceded that the facts are identical.
4.
Having considered the same, in our considered opinion, this issue is no longer res integra but is covered by the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2495/2023. As such, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition in terms of what has been held in the judgment in Writ Petition No.2495/2023. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of the decision in Writ Petition No.2495/2023. As a sequel, the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4 to consider the application filed by the petitioners under section 28-A of the said Act. All questions are kept open.
5.
Needless to clarify that the amount of rehabilitation compensation awarded earlier should be considered while awarding the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894, provided that the compensation received under the rehabilitation has to be adjusted with the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894, if granted earlier.
6.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) adgokar