DAYARAM BHONDU KOCHE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS
LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-138
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 05,2016

Dayaram Bhondu Koche and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SACHIN ANANDA PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-195] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-76] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.K. Deshpande, J. - (1.)- The Division Bench of this Court (M/s. B.P. Dharmadhikari & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.) has expressed its disagreement with the decision of another Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Shrikant Shankarrao Daulatkar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2015(4) ALL MR 845 , in relation to the applicability of the provisions relating to determination of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act") to the cases where in the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the 1894 Act"), an award was passed within a period of five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act with effect from 1-1-2014. Hence, by an order dated 2-3-2016, the Division Bench directed the Registry to place this matter before Honourable the Chief Justice for consideration and reference to a Larger Bench. Accordingly, Honourable the Chief Justice has placed this matter before us for decision of the reference.
(2.)The Division Bench, which referred the matter, did not frame the question of law to be decided by the Larger Bench, except expressing its disagreement with the view taken by another Division Bench in the case of Shrikant Shankarrao Daulatkar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , cited supra. We heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties on 5-12-2016 on the correctness of the view taken in the aforesaid decision and thereafter passed an order as under, pronouncing the ultimate decision for the reasons to follow.
"The learned Judges of the Division Bench have not framed a question which is required to be considered by the Larger Bench. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have framed the following question for answering the same.

"Whether proviso to Sec. 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is also applicable to the awards which are covered under Clause (b) of sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act -.

For the reasons to follow, we answer the question by holding that the proviso to Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act is also applicable to the awards which are covered under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act.

Resultantly, we hold that all such beneficiaries, whose names are specified in notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in case of which the awards have been passed within a period of five years prior to the date of commencement of the 2013 Act and wherein the compensation as construed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and others; 2014(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 880 : 2014(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 542 : (2014) 3 SCC 183 , is not paid to the majority of the beneficiaries would also be entitled to the compensation as per the 2013 Act.

The petition be placed before the appropriate Bench for appropriate orders."

(3.)We are concerned with the cases where an award under Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act was made within a period of five years prior to the date of commencement of the 2013 Act with effect from 1-1-2014, and we are not concerned with the cases where either no award was made or the award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. In the present case, the award was passed under Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act on 17-11-2010, and the 2013 Act came into force with effect from 1-1-2014.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.