SANTOSH DNYANESHWAR AHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: STATE)
SANTOSH DNYANESHWAR AHER
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. The Petitioner one of the owners of land bearing Survey No.78 admeasuring 2 Hectors 13 Ares situated at Village Chinchwad, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India interalia praying that the land acquisition proceedings commenced in pursuance of a notification dated 9 March 1970 issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, culminating into an Award dated 23 Sept. 1986, be declared to have lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 (for short "2013 Act").
(2.)In nutshell the facts are :
The Commissioner, Pune Division had issued a notification dated 9 March 1970 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose namely for the planned development and utilization of the lands in Pimpri Chinchwad Township area for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. Thereafter a notification dated 7 Dec. 1972 under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued as also published in the Government Gazette. An Award was declared on 23 Sept. 1986, acquiring the Petitioner's land. On 19 Sept. 2008 possession of the said land was taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Pune. The possession receipt issued in that regard also indicated that after obtaining the possession, the land was handed over to Respondent No.6 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority. Consequently a Mutation Entry No.13530 also came to be recorded in the mutation extract register, incorporating the name of Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority being mutated in the ownership column of the 7/12 extract.
(3.)The case of the Petitioner is that though the Respondents in pursuance of the Award have taken over the possession of the land as also the name of Respondent No.6 was mutated in the records of rights, however, the compensation as required to be paid under the Award, is not paid to the Petitioner. The contention is that with effect from 1 Jan. 2014, the 2013 Act, as enacted by the Parliament was brought into force and by virtue of Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act the acquisition of the Petitioner's land is deemed to have lapsed on account of the nonpayment of the amount of compensation.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition. In support of the contentions as urged in the Petition the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in the case (i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. 2014(3) SCC 183; (ii) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. AIR 2016 SC 4275 as also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of petitions being Writ Petition No.6175 of 2012 and other connected petition (Mahesh Kantilal Bhayani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) decided on 30 Nov. 2015.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.