Sukumar Arvind Kale Patil And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS
Digitally signed by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date:
2025.04.01 10:34:23 +0530 SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6228 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO.6228 OF 2022 1.
1.
Sukumar Arvind Kale Patil, Sukumar Arvind Kale Patil, Age: 38 Years, Occu: Agriculture Age: 38 Years, Occu: Agriculture 2.
2.
Kameshwar Arvind Kale Patil Kameshwar Arvind Kale Patil Age: 34 years, Occu: Agriculture Age: 34 years, Occu: Agriculture 3.
3.
Pralhad Narayan Kale Patil Pralhad Narayan Kale Patil Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture 4.
4.
Hansraj Pralhad Kale Patil Hansraj Pralhad Kale Patil Age: 30 years, Occu: Agriculture Age: 30 years, Occu: Agriculture 5.
5.
Deepakraj Pralhad Kale Patil Deepakraj Pralhad Kale Patil Age: 27 years, Occu: Agriculture Age: 27 years, Occu: Agriculture 6.
6.
Arvind Narayan Kale Arvind Narayan Kale Age: 64 years, Occu: Agriculture Age: 64 years, Occu: Agriculture 7.
7.
Santosh Narayan Kale Santosh Narayan Kale Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture All residing at Village Vizori All residing at Village Vizori Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur
...Petitioners
...Petitioners
Versus
Versus
1.
1.
The Union of India The Union of India 2.
2.
The State of Maharashtra The State of Maharashtra 3.
3.
The Chief Engineer The Chief Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pune Maharashtra Road Development Pune Maharashtra Road Development Corporation, Annasaheb Magar Building, Corporation, Annasaheb Magar Building, Gate No. 2 Market Yard, Gultekdi, Gate No. 2 Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune - 411 037 Pune - 411 037 4.
4.
The Superintendent Engineer The Superintendent Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pune Maharashtra Road Development Pune Maharashtra Road Development Corporation, Corporation, Annasaheb Magar Building, Gate No. 2 Annasaheb Magar Building, Gate No. 2 Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune - 411 037 Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune - 411 037
Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx 5.
5.
The Executive Engineer The Executive Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pune Maharashtra Road Development Pune Maharashtra Road Development Corporation, Annasaheb Magar Building, Corporation, Annasaheb Magar Building, Gate No. 2 Market Yard, Gultekdi, Gate No. 2 Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune - 411 037 Pune - 411 037 6.
6.
The Deputy Engineer The Deputy Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pune Maharashtra Road Development Pune Maharashtra Road Development Corporation, Zilla Parishad Compound, Corporation, Zilla Parishad Compound, Solapur Solapur 7.
7.
The Junior Engineer The Junior Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Pune Maharashtra Road Development Pune Maharashtra Road Development Corporation, Public Works Department, Corporation, Public Works Department, Akluj - 413 101 Akluj - 413 101
...Respondents
...Respondents
_____________________________________________________ Mr. Avinash B. Avhad for the Petitioners.
Mr. Avinash B. Avhad for the Petitioners.
Mr. Parag Vyas a/w Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. Parag Vyas a/w Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent No.1-UOI. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent-State. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED:
28 March 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sonak, J.):- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3.
The Petitioners claim to own the property described in The Petitioners claim to own the property described in paragraph No.1 of the petition.
paragraph No.1 of the petition.
4.
In 1971, the Petitioners or their predecessors in title instituted In 1971, the Petitioners or their predecessors in title instituted Special Civil Suit No.112 of 1971 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Special Civil Suit No.112 of 1971 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Solapur, seeking a permanent injunction, Division at Solapur, seeking a permanent injunction, inter alia, inter alia, against against the State of Maharashtra from carrying out any road construction on the State of Maharashtra from carrying out any road construction on
Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx the Petitioners' lands without following due process of law. The trial the Petitioners' lands without following due process of law. The trial Court dismissed this by its order dated 31 July 1976. Court dismissed this by its order dated 31 July 1976. 5.
The Petitioners or their predecessors in title instituted First The Petitioners or their predecessors in title instituted First Appeal No.675 of 1976 before this Court challenging the Trial Court's Appeal No.675 of 1976 before this Court challenging the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 31 July 1976 dismissing Special Civil Suit judgment and decree dated 31 July 1976 dismissing Special Civil Suit No. 112 of 1971.
No. 112 of 1971. This Court disposed of First Appeal No.675 of 1976 First Appeal No.675 of 1976 vide judgment and order dated 19 September 1987 (Exhibit-B at pages vide judgment and order dated 19 September 1987 (Exhibit-B at pages 41 to 49) of the paper book.
41 to 49) of the paper book.
6.
This Court rejected the Petitioners' contentions that the State This Court rejected the Petitioners' contentions that the State had trespassed into the Petitioners' properties because the Court found had trespassed into the Petitioners' properties because the Court found that the Petitioners had consented to the road project. However, this that the Petitioners had consented to the road project. However, this Court made the following observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 :- Court made the following observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 :- "10. Plaintiff No.1 in his evidence has categorically admitted that "10. Plaintiff No.
1 in his evidence has categorically admitted that he along with the other villagers, on the 20th August 1971 had he along with the other villagers, on the 20th August 1971 had consented to the construction and the widening of the old road. It, consented to the construction and the widening of the old road. It, however, appears that when the road progressed up to his land, he however, appears that when the road progressed up to his land, he raised an objection by sending the telegram (Exhibit 81). The raised an objection by sending the telegram (Exhibit 81). The further progress stopped between the 3rd and the 17th September, further progress stopped between the 3rd and the 17th September, 1971. During this period, with the intervention of the local leaders 1971.
During this period, with the intervention of the local leaders and the concerned Government Officers, it was decided to reduce and the concerned Government Officers, it was decided to reduce the width of the road from 42 feet to 32 feet and after the plaintiffs the width of the road from 42 feet to 32 feet and after the plaintiffs had issued his writing (Exhibit 69) dated the 3rd September 1971 had issued his writing (Exhibit 69) dated the 3rd September 1971 and (Exhibit 70) dated the 8th September 1971 the further work of and (Exhibit 70) dated the 8th September 1971 the further work of road widening progressed. Having considered the aforesaid road widening progressed.
Having considered the aforesaid evidence, I am inclined to hold that the plaintiffs did accord evidence, I am inclined to hold that the plaintiffs did accord consent for the aforesaid project of road-widening and hence their consent for the aforesaid project of road-widening and hence their case that the defendants had forcibly trespassed into his land will case that the defendants had forcibly trespassed into his land will have to be negatived. However, the fact that the possession of the have to be negatived. However, the fact that the possession of the said land was taken by the defendant No.1 without resorting to any said land was taken by the defendant No.1 without resorting to any proceedings under the Land acquisition Act cannot be disputed. proceedings under the Land acquisition Act cannot be disputed.
Similarly, the fact that certain crops and standing trees in the land Similarly, the fact that certain crops and standing trees in the land of the plaintiffs was found to be destroyed is reflected in the report of the plaintiffs was found to be destroyed is reflected in the report (Exhibit 75) made by the P.S.I. to the Tahsildar. With the evidence (Exhibit 75) made by the P.S.I. to the Tahsildar. With the evidence led at the trial, It is not possible to arrive at any specific finding as led at the trial, It is not possible to arrive at any specific finding as to the extent of the land belonging to the plaintiffs that has been to the extent of the land belonging to the plaintiffs that has been utilised for the construction of the road. Similarly, the extent of the utilised for the construction of the road.
Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx cannot be determined. However, it shall be the duty of the cannot be determined. However, it shall be the duty of the defendant No.1, the State of initiate proceedings under the Land defendant No.1, the State of initiate proceedings under the Land acquisition Act for the purpose of acquiring that portion of the land acquisition Act for the purpose of acquiring that portion of the land which has been utilised for the widening of the said Vijori-Khudus which has been utilised for the widening of the said Vijori-Khudus Road. In the said proceedings, it would be open to the parties to Road.
In the said proceedings, it would be open to the parties to lead evidence regarding the market value of the land as also the lead evidence regarding the market value of the land as also the value of the crops and the trees which were damaged or destroyed. value of the crops and the trees which were damaged or destroyed. Since the construction of the road had been undertaken by Since the construction of the road had been undertaken by obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs, it would, not be open to the obtaining the consent of the plaintiffs, it would, not be open to the plaintiffs to claim back the possession of that land. plaintiffs to claim back the possession of that land.
11. In the result, the decree of the trial Court will have to be
11. In the result, the decree of the trial Court will have to be confirmed though on grounds different from the ones that confirmed though on grounds different from the ones that commended themselves to the learned Judge of the trial Court. In commended themselves to the learned Judge of the trial Court. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree is confirmed and the result, the impugned judgment and decree is confirmed and subject to the observations made hereinabove, the appeal is subject to the observations made hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
no order as to costs."
7.
The present petition was instituted because the Respondents The present petition was instituted because the Respondents have now commenced the work of road widening on the Petitioners' have now commenced the work of road widening on the Petitioners' properties. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that despite properties. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that despite this Court's judgment and order dated 19 September 1987, no this Court's judgment and order dated 19 September 1987, no proceedings have been taken to acquire the property occupied by the proceedings have been taken to acquire the property occupied by the original road. Now, the Respondents are proceeding with road widening original road. Now, the Respondents are proceeding with road widening works.
He submitted that such an approach is high-handed and works. He submitted that such an approach is high-handed and arbitrary, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He arbitrary, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the right to property is now recognised as a submitted that the right to property is now recognised as a constitutional and human right and, therefore, the State cannot deprive constitutional and human right and, therefore, the State cannot deprive the Petitioners of such right without following the due process of law. the Petitioners of such right without following the due process of law. He relied upon He relied upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors.
Shah & Ors.1, Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Vs. MIDC & Ors. Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Vs. MIDC & Ors.2 in support of in support of his submission.
his submission.
8.
Mr. Pawar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that Mr. Pawar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the present project was not for road widening but only for upgradation the present project was not for road widening but only for upgradation (2024) 10 SCC 533 2 (2013) 1 SCC 353
Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx of the existing road. He referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Vilas of the existing road. He referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Vilas Vitthal Dhere, Deputy Engineer, Maharashtra Road Development Vitthal Dhere, Deputy Engineer, Maharashtra Road Development Corporation, Pune in this regard. This affidavit refers to upgrading and Corporation, Pune in this regard. This affidavit refers to upgrading and maintaining the existing 32 feet road. This affidavit also refers to a maintaining the existing 32 feet road. This affidavit also refers to a Government Circular dated 26 October 2010, which, according to the Government Circular dated 26 October 2010, which, according to the affiant, contemplates that there are no provisions for payment of any affiant, contemplates that there are no provisions for payment of any compensation.
compensation.
9.
Along with the affidavit, a communication dated 6 December Along with the affidavit, a communication dated 6 December 2020 is annexed. In this communication, the officials of the 2020 is annexed. In this communication, the officials of the Maharashtra Road Development Corporation sought information from Maharashtra Road Development Corporation sought information from the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Zilla Parishad, Solapur, about the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Zilla Parishad, Solapur, about the status of compensation payment to the Petitioners. The learned the status of compensation payment to the Petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that since the Zilla Parishad Assistant Government Pleader submitted that since the Zilla Parishad provided no information, no compensation has been paid to the provided no information, no compensation has been paid to the Petitioners.
Petitioners.
10.
The pleadings on either side in this matter are blissfully The pleadings on either side in this matter are blissfully vague. Even the prayer clauses are blissfully vague. The Petitioners have vague. Even the prayer clauses are blissfully vague. The Petitioners have sought only the following substantive relief in this petition:- sought only the following substantive relief in this petition:- "(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or "(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction to the Respondents to construct the village road Kudus - direction to the Respondents to construct the village road Kudus - Paniv - Vizori as per the alignment shown in the Village Map and Paniv - Vizori as per the alignment shown in the Village Map and only after completion of the process of acquisition of lands." only after completion of the process of acquisition of lands." 11.
However, notwithstanding the state of pleadings, it does However, notwithstanding the state of pleadings, it does transpire that the Respondents utilised the Petitioner's property for road transpire that the Respondents utilised the Petitioner's property for road works based upon some consent given by Petitioners or their works based upon some consent given by Petitioners or their predecessors in title. However, there is nothing to show that this predecessors in title. However, there is nothing to show that this consent was for the State using the Petitioners' property without consent was for the State using the Petitioners' property without compensation. In any event, this Court's judgment and order dated 19 compensation. In any event, this Court's judgment and order dated 19
Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx September 1987 in First Appeal No.675 of 1976 binds the State and the September 1987 in First Appeal No.675 of 1976 binds the State and the Respondents herein. This Court observed that the State should initiate Respondents herein. This Court observed that the State should initiate acquisition proceedings and pay suitable compensation to the acquisition proceedings and pay suitable compensation to the Petitioners. To date, neither have any proceedings been initiated nor has Petitioners. To date, neither have any proceedings been initiated nor has any compensation been paid to the Petitioners. any compensation been paid to the Petitioners. 12.
Based upon some vague Circular dated 26 October 2010, the Based upon some vague Circular dated 26 October 2010, the State cannot deny compensation to the Petitioners after using the State cannot deny compensation to the Petitioners after using the Petitioners' properties for road works. On one hand, the affidavit on Petitioners' properties for road works. On one hand, the affidavit on behalf of the State Government seeks to deny compensation. On the behalf of the State Government seeks to deny compensation.
On the other hand, the State makes enquiries about the status of the other hand, the State makes enquiries about the status of the compensation with the Zilla Parishad by making specific reference to compensation with the Zilla Parishad by making specific reference to the directions issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 19 the directions issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 19 September 1987 disposing of First Appeal No.675 of 1976. Merely, the September 1987 disposing of First Appeal No.675 of 1976.
Merely, the Zilla Parishad has not bothered to give particulars; the State cannot Zilla Parishad has not bothered to give particulars; the State cannot avoid its duty of following the due process of law and acquiring the avoid its duty of following the due process of law and acquiring the Petitioners' properties, which are being used for road purposes and Petitioners' properties, which are being used for road purposes and paying compensation to the Petitioners.
paying compensation to the Petitioners.
13.
In In Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra), Tukaram Kana Joshi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is held that the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is a constitutional and human right. Such a right cannot be defeated on a constitutional and human right. Such a right cannot be defeated on technical grounds by citing delay. To the same effect, the observations in technical grounds by citing delay. To the same effect, the observations in Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3. Here, . Here, fortunately, the State has not raised any objections based on delay and fortunately, the State has not raised any objections based on delay and laches.
The argument on delay and laches was rejected by the Hon'ble laches. The argument on delay and laches was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Supreme Court and, by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani & Ors. vs. The Executive Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani & Ors. vs. The Executive Engineer and Ors.
Engineer and Ors.4 3 (2022) 7 SCC 508 4 Writ Petition No.1430 of 2022 decided on 5 January 2024.
Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx 14.
In In Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra), Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra), it is reiterated that it is reiterated that while after the 44 while after the 44th th Constitutional Amendment, the right to property Constitutional Amendment, the right to property drifted from Part-III to Part-XII of the Constitution, there continuous to drifted from Part-III to Part-XII of the Constitution, there continuous to be a safety net against the arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decisions making be a safety net against the arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decisions making and unfair redressal mechanism. Despite its spatial, Article 300-A of the and unfair redressal mechanism. Despite its spatial, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which declares that "
Constitution of India, which declares that "no person shall be deprived no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law of his property save by authority of law", has been characterised both as ", has been characterised both as a constitutional and human right. The Court has held that this a constitutional and human right. The Court has held that this constitutional or human right to property comprises constitutional or human right to property comprises inter alia inter alia of seven of seven sub-rights or the strands, albeit non-exhaustive. This includes the duty sub-rights or the strands, albeit non-exhaustive.
This includes the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate - the right of restitution or fair of the State to restitute and rehabilitate - the right of restitution or fair compensation, the duty of the State to conduct the process of compensation, the duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings - right to an efficient and expeditious process, and proceedings - right to an efficient and expeditious process, and conclusion of proceedings leading to vesting and right of conclusion. conclusion of proceedings leading to vesting and right of conclusion. 15.
Accordingly, by following the above precedents, and having Accordingly, by following the above precedents, and having regard to the order made by this Court on 19 September 1987 disposing regard to the order made by this Court on 19 September 1987 disposing of First Appeal No.675 of 1976, we direct the Respondents to demark of First Appeal No.675 of 1976, we direct the Respondents to demark the precise extent of the Petitioners' land that is being used for road and the precise extent of the Petitioners' land that is being used for road and road works within three months from today. The Respondents must road works within three months from today. The Respondents must refer to the village maps and other relevant material for this purpose. refer to the village maps and other relevant material for this purpose.
The Petitioner can also supply such relevant material within 15 days to The Petitioner can also supply such relevant material within 15 days to assist the Respondents in undertaking this exercise. After such assist the Respondents in undertaking this exercise. After such demarcation is completed, Respondents are directed to initiate and demarcation is completed, Respondents are directed to initiate and complete acquisition proceedings for this demarcated portion within complete acquisition proceedings for this demarcated portion within one year of such demarcation. The conclusion of these proceedings one year of such demarcation. The conclusion of these proceedings would mean payment of compensation in accordance with law to the would mean payment of compensation in accordance with law to the person interested.
This entire exercise must be completed within an person interested. This entire exercise must be completed within an outer limit of 15 months from the uploading of this judgment and order. outer limit of 15 months from the uploading of this judgment and order.
Sayyed 16-WP.6228.2022.docx Suppose the persons interested are not satisfied with the compensation Suppose the persons interested are not satisfied with the compensation amount, they may accept it under protest or without prejudice, and seek amount, they may accept it under protest or without prejudice, and seek enhancement under land acquisition legislation by complying with the enhancement under land acquisition legislation by complying with the requirements prescribed by the law.
requirements prescribed by the law.
16.
The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any cost The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any cost order.
order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)