VISAWAS TRAMBAK PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. The matter is arising out of land acquisition. Therefore hereinafter, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is referred to as 'the 2013 Act' and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is referred to as 'the 1894 Act".

(2.) The Petitioners claim to be the owners of the various lands at Village Kopar, Taluka Panvel Dist. Raigad, as specifically described in Exhibit A to the Petition (Page 23). The Petitioners also claim to be still in possession of the subject matter lands. Here and now, it is necessary to note that all 7x12 extracts (revenue records) of the subject matter lands, annexed by the Petitioners themselves at Exh. 'B' show name of CIDCO as holder.

(3.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, 23 in number, all through a Power of Attorney holder, initially challenged the acquisition of the subject matter lands on the ground that their respective lands are still in their possession and that no compensation is paid to them. The Petition was initially filed seeking declaration that the acquisition in respect of subject matter lands has lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the 2013 Act and therefore claiming compensation as per the provisions thereof at today's market rate. Further alternative prayer is made seeking directions to the Respondents to give benefit of 22.5% scheme to the Petitioners as decided by the State in CIDCO areas.