SURESH RANGANATH BHAYBHANG Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for payment of compensation at the present market rate in respect of land admeasuring 545. 50 sq. metres (approximately six gunthas) from plot No. 3 of Survey No. 1097/a/1-A.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that he owned land admeasuring about 22 ares in plot No. 3 of Survey No. 109/a/1-A on the Dharangaon road of Kopargaon town and out of the said land about 545. 50 sq. metres land was acquired by the respondent No. 1 sometimes in the year 1972-73 for extension of Kopargaon-Takali Road, to be undertaken under the scarcity relief works. He alleges that possession of the land was forcibly taken from him, that the land acquisition proceedings were not initiated at any time and, that he was not paid the compensation. He had, therefore, lodged an objection on 8-5-1973 before the Godavari Canal Sub-Division Officer at Kopargaon. Thereafter, he submitted a representation to the Tahsildar, Kopargaon on 16-2-1983 and asked for compensation. He issued a legal notice on 15-12-1984 to the Administrator, Municipal Council, Kopargaon (respondent No. 2) and approached the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik (respondent No. 4) vide his representation dated 22-5-1985. The Divisional Commissioner had acted upon the said representation and by communication dated 21-8-1985, addressed to the Collector, called upon the Municipal Council to pay the compensation on the basis of the assessment done at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq metre. The Commissioner had also issued letter sometime in May 1987 to the Municipal Council to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the land he had lost in the extension or widening of the road. No steps were taken, either by the Collector or the Municipal Council and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in the instant petition, which was filed before us on 11-10-1989. The petition was admitted by the order dated 6-2-1990 and by the order dated 4-9-1998 the State Government was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. We are informed by the learned Counsel for the Municipal Council that the amount was not deposited by the State Government and in fact, it has been deposited by the Municipal Council under coercion.

(3.) THE only question that we are required to consider is whether the petitioner succeeds in seeking mandamus from us for payment of compensation in respect of the subject land. The petitioners claim is based on the communication issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik dated 21-8-1985 addressed to the Collector Ahmednagar, as well as the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 255 of 1987. Our attention has also been invited to the Writ Petition No. 3356 of 1993, in which at Exhibit "d", there is a communication dated 11-3-1988 issued by the Deputy Director of Municipal Administration, Mantralaya, Mumbai, wherein it has been stated that the present petitioner ought to be given a compensation in respect of 545. 50 sq. metres of land, at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. metre. This communication was addressed to the respondent No. 2 Municipal Council. Writ Petition No. 3356 of 1993 came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 15-4-1988. The operative part of the said other reads thus :-