SACHIN ANANDA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-2
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: AURANGABAD)
Decided on March 01,2017

Sachin Ananda Patil Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Sangitrao S. Patil, J. - (1.)Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. representing the respondents, heard finally.
(2.)The admitted facts, in brief, are that the lands of the petitioners came to be acquired by respondent no.3 - Executive Engineer, Building and Construction (P.W.) Department, Jalgaon, for construction of a bridge at village Samner, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon, on Jalgaon to Pachora Road. Possession of the lands of the petitioners was taken by private negotiations on 106.1997. However, the notice under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act of 1894", for short) was issued on 11.01.2013. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made on 26.02013. The public notice under Section 9(1) and (2) was given on 24.05.2013. The Award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 came to be passed on 05.12013, however, the amount of compensation was not paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.8495 of 2015, seeking directions against respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation to them. This Court passed an order on 16.12015 and directed the said respondents to deposit the amount payable to the petitioners under the Award dated 05.12013, together with interest and other benefits in this Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said Award. Accordingly, the said respondents deposited amount of compensation payable to the petitioners in this Court, which was ultimately received by them on 04.03.2016.
(3.)According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, since the amount of compensation was not paid to the petitioners on or before the date of commencement (i.e. 01.01.2014) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act of 2013", for short), in view of the proviso given under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the petitioners are entitled to get compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 201 In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and others, 2014 (4) Mh.L.J, (S.C.) 566 : (2014) 3 SCC 18
;


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