Pramod S/O Sukhdeorao Thakare v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept Of Revenue Amravati And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4299/2016 Pramod s/o Sukhdeorao Thakare ...Versus...

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Amravati, Tahsil and District : Amravati and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Smt. Neeta Jog, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, AGP for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 04.08.2016 By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the mutation of the name of the respondent no.3 - State Government, in the 7/12 extract pertaining to Survey No.105/4, is illegal. A direction is sought by the petitioner against the respondents to delete the entry and incorporate the name of the petitioner therein.

Admittedly, land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the petitioner's land in the year 2009 and 2010 and an award was passed on 11.9.2012. The compensation of Rs.26,79,847/- was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a reference seeking enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is the case of the petitioner that though the actual possession of the land of the

petitioner is not secured by the respondents, the respondents could not have entered their name in the 7/12 extract. It is stated that the land would vest in the State Government only after the actual possession of the land is taken. It is stated that the actual possession of the land of the petitioner is not taken and hence, the respondents cannot enter the name of the State Government in the 7/12 extract.

We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for a declaration of the nature, that is, sought. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner is acquired and the petitioner has received the entire compensation that was payable towards the acquisition of the land. The petitioner has also filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The question whether the actual possession of the land of the petitioner was secured by the respondents or not would be a disputed question and it would not be for this Court to decide the same, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

The said question would also not fall for consideration before this Court by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 as the land of the petitioner was not acquired more than five years or more before coming into force of the Act of 2013. Only if the award was passed five years or more before coming into force of the said Act, the question whether the petitioner's possession was actually secured by the respondents or not would have been relevant.

extract, specially in a case where the land is acquired in 2012 and the compensation is paid to the petitioner.

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar

C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.

Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 09/08/2016