Bombay High Court
Vijay Shankar Deshpande Decd Thru Lhr vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Addl. … on 10 January, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S.Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:1079-DB WP-3214-3215-19.docx
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2025.01.10
14:40:03 +0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3214 OF 2019
1. Geeta Vijay Deshapnde ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
Died on 18.06.2024 through ]
Her Legal heirs. ]
1A. Kapil Vijay Deshpande ]
Age: Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
1B. Kashyap Vijay Deshpande ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
1C. Karuna Ravindra Yellapurkar (Bhat) ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
1D. Kavita Nitin Muzumdar ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
Petitioner No. 1A to 1D are ]
R/o - Munguswadi, Taluka - Aajara, ]
District- Kolhapur ]
2. Sunil Madhav Deshpande ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
Both R/o. Munguswadi, Tal. Ajara, ]
Dist. Kolhapur ]...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharshtra, ]
Through Additional Chief Secretary, ]
Revenue & Forest Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
2. The District Collector, Kolhapur ]
Having office at Swarajya Bhavan, ]
Page 1 of 12
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
Assembly Road, Nagala Park, Kolhapur ]
3. The Deputy Collector ]
(Land Acquisition) ]
No.12 @ Special Land Acquisition ]
Officer No. 12, Having office at ]
Swarajya Bhavan, Assembly Road ]
Nagala Park, Kolhapur ]
4. The Deputy Collector @ Deputy ]
Director, ]
Rehabilitation (Land), Having office at ]
Having office at Swarajya Bhavan, ]
Assembly Road, Nagala Park, ]
Kolhapur. ]
5. Vishnu Appa Manjrekar ]
Age : Adult, Occu : Agriculturist ]
6. Suryakant Appa Manjrekar ]
Age- Adult, Occu.- Agriculture ]
7. Datta Appa Manjrekar ]
Age- Adult, Occu.- Agriculture ]
8. Shivaji Mahadev Supal ]
Age- Adult, Occu.- Agriculture ]
9. Somana Mahadev Supal ]
Age- Adult, Occu.- Agriculture ]
Respondent No. 5 to 9 ]
Al R/o - Chalewade, Tal. Ajara, ]
Dist. Kolhapur ]...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3215 OF 2019
1. Vijay Shankar Deshpande ]
Since deceased through legal heirs ]
1A. Geeta Vijay Deshpande ]
Age: Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
Page 2 of 12
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
1B. Kapil Vijay Deshpande ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
1C. Kashyap Vijay Deshpande ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
1D. Karuna Ravindra Yellapurkar (Bhat) ]
Age : Adult, Occu. : Agriculture ]
1E. Kavita Nitin Muzumdar ]
Age : Adult, Occu.: Agriculture ]
All R/o - Munguswadi, ]
Taluka - Aajara, District- Kolhapur ]...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Additional Chief Secretary, ]
Revenue & Forest Department, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
2. The District Collector, Kolhapur ]
Having office at Swarajya Bhavan, ]
Assembly Road, Nagala Park, Kolhapur ]
3. The Deputy Collector ]
(Land Acquisition) ]
No.12 @ Special Land Acquisition ]
Officer No. 12, Having office at ]
Swarajya Bhavan, Assembly Road ]
Nagala Park, Kolhapur. ]
4. The Deputy Collector @ Deputy ]
Director, ]
Rehabilitation (Land), Having office at, ]
Having office at Swarajya Bhavan, ]
Assembly Road, Nagala Park, ]
Kolhapur. ]...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Page 3 of 12
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
A PPEARANCES -
Mr Umesh Pawar, a/w Mr Sagar Sonawane, for the Petitioners
Mr A P Shinde, 'B' Panel Counsel, a/w Ms S R Crasto, AGP for the
Respondent-State.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S.Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 09 January 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10 January 2025
JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):
–
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule in each of these Petitions. The rule is made returnable
immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
3. The learned counsel for the parties agree that substantially
common issues of law and fact arise in these Petitions. Therefore,
these petitions could be disposed of by a common order.
4. Initially, these Petitions were filed to obtain a declaration
that the proceedings for the acquisition of the Petitioners’ lands
have lapsed, given the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the said Act”).
However, after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others,
etc.1, the Petitions were amended, and the Petitioners have sought
a direction in terms of Section 24(2) of the said Act for
determination and payment of compensation under the said Act,
instead of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984,
1
AIR 2020 SC 1496
Page 4 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
under which the acquisition proceedings had commenced. Mr.
Pawar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, pressed
only for relief in terms of the amended prayer clause (b-1).
5. The prayer clause (b-1) in both the Petitions is the same,
except for the description of the Petitioners’ respective lands.
Therefore, prayer clause (b-1) in Writ Petition No.3214 of 2019 is
transcribed below for the convenience of reference: –
“(b-1) By a suitable Writ, Order or direction, this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to
determine the compensation and pass Award under the
provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect of the aforesaid land
admeasuring 3 Hectares 34 Ares (i.e. H-0.92 Ares + H-
2.42 Ares) out of the Gat No.110 situated at
Munguswadi, Taluka Ajara, District: Kolhapur.”
6. The Petitioners’ lands were notified under Section 11 of the
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1989, for
resettlement of persons affected by the Chitri Project vide a
Notification dated 22 June 1992. A further Notification dated 16
March 1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, notified them of acquisition for the aforesaid purpose. A
Section 6 Notification was issued on 02 July 1997, and ultimately,
the land acquisition officer made an Award on 16 April 1999 for
acquiring the Petitioners’ lands.
7. The Petitioners initially alleged that neither physical
possession of their lands was taken nor compensation for their
acquired lands was paid. Accordingly, relying on Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & ors.2, the
2
AIR 2014 SC 982
Page 5 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
petitioners urged that the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed,
given the provisions of Section 24(1) of the said Act.
8. However, the third Respondent filed Affidavits in these
Petitions on 11 July 2023 stating that though compensation was
never paid to the Petitioners despite the Award dated 16 April
1999, still, the possession of the Petitioners’ lands was taken, and
such lands were allotted to the project affected persons vide Sub-
Divisional Officer’s order dated 17 February 2018. Accordingly,
relying on the Indore Development Authority (supra) decision, the
Respondents submitted that there was no lapsing of the
acquisition.
9. The Petitioners have not filed an Affidavit in Rejoinder
disputing the fact that the Respondents took over possession of the
acquired lands. Instead, by accepting this position, the Petitioners
amended the Petitions and sought relief in terms of the prayer
clause (b-1) referred to above.
10. Section 24 of the said Act reads as follows: –
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this
Act relating to the determination of compensation shall
apply, or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made,
then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions
of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not
been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an awardPage 6 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docxunder the said section 11 has been made five years or more
prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the
compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall
be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government,
if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land
acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this
Act:
PROVIDED that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has
not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then,
all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.”
11. In Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra), a three-judge bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had construed the word “or” in
Section 24(2) of the said Act as disjunctive. Therefore, as long as a
land owner whose land had been acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 could establish that the Award in respect of
the acquisition of the land had been made five years or more prior
to the commencement of the said Act but the physical possession of
the land had not been taken or the compensation had not been
paid, the said proceedings would be deemed to have been lapsed
and the appropriate Government, if so chooses, could initiate
proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of the said Act.
12. Thus, since the word “or” was construed as disjunctive, the
landowner had only to establish that in respect of an Award made
five years or more prior to the commencement of the said Act,
either the physical possession of the land had not been taken or the
compensation had not been paid to the landowner. Upon such
establishment, the landowner could get a declaration that the land
acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed.
Page 7 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
13. In Indore Development Authority (supra), a reference was
made to a five-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to decide
the correct interpretation of Section 24 of the said Act. One of the
main issues was whether Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was
correctly decided and whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) of
the said Act should be read as conjunctive or disjunctive.
14. Amongst the other questions raised and answered, the five-
judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) held that the word “or” in Section
24(2) of the said Act should be read as “nor” or as “and”. This
means that the five-judge bench held that the word “or” in Section
24(2) of the said Act should be construed as conjunctive, not
disjunctive.
15. The above conclusion is recorded in paragraph 363(3) of
Indore Development Authority (supra) and reads as follows:-
“363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions
as under :-
1. …..
2. …..
3. The word `or’ used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as `nor’ or as
`and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes placed where
due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of the land
has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In
other words, in case possession has been taken,
compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse.
Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has
not been taken then there is no lapse.
4 …..
5 …..
6 …..
Page 8 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
7 …..
8 …..
9. …..”
16. Thus, based on Indore Development Authority (supra), the
Petitioners’ case about the lapsing of the acquisition proceedings
cannot be accepted. Therefore, the prayers regarding the lapsing of
the acquisition cannot be granted and were correctly not pressed.
17. Mr Pawar, relying upon Indore Development Authority
(supra), pointed out that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the said
Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) and not part of Section
24(1)(b). Accordingly, he submitted that since, in this case, an
Award had been made on 16 April 1999 and compensation in
respect of the majority of land holdings had not been deposited in
the account of the beneficiaries, all the beneficiaries specified in
the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
18. Mr Pawar pointed out that the acquisition and award in this
case concerned areas measuring 5 Hectares and 20 areas. Out of
this, the petitioners in the two petitions owned 4 Hectares and 87
Ares. Thus, this constitutes a majority of land holdings as
contemplated by the proviso to section 24(2) of the said Act.
Admittedly, no compensation was paid or offered to the
petitioners. In Indore Development Authority (supra), it is held
that the area of land is a relevant factor.
19. Mr. Pawar submitted that the Petitioners’ case was covered
by this proviso to Section 24(2) of the said Act, and based on this,
they were entitled to compensation in accordance with its
provisions. He relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of
Page 9 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
this Court in the case of Shital Anna Walawade and ors vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors.3 in support of this contention.
20. The Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of the Respondents on
11 July 2023 shows that no compensation was paid to the
Petitioners because the acquiring body had not deposited such
compensation with the State Government.
21. A reference in the above regard must be made to paragraph
4 of the State Government’s Affidavit dated 11 July 2023 which
reads as follows:-
“4. I say that after declaration of final Award, the notice
u/s 12(2) & Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
not issued to the Petitioner as the amount of compensation
was not received from the Acquiring Body. I further say
that the compensation amount has been demanded from
Acquiring Body vide this office letter क् .भूसं-
12/आरआर/618/2022, दि .06/12/2022. I further say &
submit that the compensation will be paid to the Petitioner
in respect of their Acquired land as and when the amount
receives from the Acquiring Body.”
22. Accordingly, Mr. A P Shinde, the learned “B” Panel Counsel,
along with Ms. S R Crasto, the learned AGP for the Respondents–
State, did not dispute the Petitioners’ entitlement to compensation
under the provisions of the said Act in terms of the proviso to
Section 24(2) of the said Act.
23. The provisions of Section 24 of the said Act are quite clear. If
at all there was any ambiguity, the same stands resolved by the
decision of the five-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). In paragraph
363(6), the conclusion is recorded to the fact that the proviso to
Section 24(2) of the said Act is to be treated as part of Section
24(2) and not part of Section 24(1)(b) of the said Act.
3
Writ Petition No.6048 of 2021 decided on 12 January 2023.
Page 10 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
24. In the facts and circumstances similar to those appearing in
the present matters, the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shital
Walawade (supra) considered the question of whether the
Respondents (State) not having deposited the compensation
payable to the Petitioners in the Court or not having paid the
Petitioners the compensation prior to 01 April 2014, such
Petitioners would be entitled to seek compensation under the
proviso to Section 24(2) of the said Act not.
25. The Coordinate Bench in Shital Walawade (supra) noted
that though the award was made, the compensation was not
deposited or paid to the beneficiaries, i.e. the Petitioners, before 01
April 2014. Accordingly, the Coordinate Bench held that the
Petitioners would be entitled to the compensation under the said
Act given the proviso to Section 24(2) of the said Act. The Court
directed the Respondent-State to compute the amount payable
under the said Act within eight weeks and release the said amount
along with all other benefits permissible under the said Act within
eight weeks thereafter.
26. Thus, given the position and law on the subject and applying
the same to the facts in the present case, we allow both these
Petitions regarding the prayer clause (b-1). As noted earlier, Mr. A
P Shinde, the learned “B” Panel Counsel for the Respondents-State,
fairly accepted that the Petitioners would be entitled to the
compensation under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the said Act.
Accordingly, we make the Rule absolute in terms of the prayer
clause (b-1) in both the Petitions.
27. We direct the concerned Respondents to make an award
computing compensation payable to the Petitioners within three
months from today and further to pay the Petitioners
Page 11 of 12
::: Uploaded on – 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::
WP-3214-3215-19.docx
compensation in terms of the said Act within two months of
making such award along with all the consequential benefits that
may be available under the said Act. The concerned Respondents
must file a compliance report in this Court by 09 June 2025 after
serving an advance copy on the learned counsel for the Petitioners.
28. The direction for filing a compliance report is issued
because, according to the Respondents, possession of the
Petitioners’ land was taken in 2018, and no compensation has been
paid to the Petitioners to date. The acquisition proceedings
commenced in 1992. Though we have granted the Respondents
sufficient time, we do not want a situation where no compensation
is paid to the Petitioners within the indicated timeline. The
Petitioners cannot be made to wait indefinitely for compensation
for their acquired lands.
29. Both Petitions are disposed of in the above terms without a
costs order considering the fair approach of Mr. A P Shinde, the
learned “B” Panel Counsel for the Respondents-State, and also
because of the Affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) No.12, Kolhapur, dated 11 July 2023, which stated the
true and correct facts instead of indulging in pointless denials.
30. All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J) w Page 12 of 12 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2025 09:57:04 :::