VITTHAL RAMA PAWAR Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in all the above Writ Petitions. The Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

(2.) All the above Writ Petitions have been filed raising the same question of law, namely, (i) in acquisition proceedings, whether an Award can be passed without applying the multiplier factor as specified in the 1st schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ' the 2013 Act'); (ii) whether the notification issued under the 2nd entry of the 1st schedule of the 2013 Act [specifying the multiplier factor], read with Sec. 26(2) thereof, is mandatory before making an Award; and (iii) where acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act') and no Award under Sec. 11 thereof is passed, then after the coming into force of the 2013 Act, within how much time the Award has to be passed. These are the three basic core questions to be decided in the above Writ Petitions. It is agreed between the parties that the facts in all the cases are more or less the same, and a decision in one Writ Petition will cover all the others. Since the facts in Writ Petition No.11513 of 2015 have been referred to by the counsel for the respective parties, we shall refer to the facts and the prayers in the said Writ Petition.

(3.) Writ Petition No.11513 of 2015 is filed inter alia seeking to quash and set aside the entire acquisition proceedings in relation to the lands more particularly described in Exhibit 'A' and 'A1' of the Petition as well as the Award passed in relation thereto (Exhibit 'B' to the Petition). By an amendment carried out to the above Petition, (a) a declaration is sought that no Award under Sec. 26(1) of the 2013 Act can be made unless the market value of the land is multiplied by a factor as specified in the 1st Schedule of the 2013 Act; and (b) for a further declaration that the period of limitation of 12 months prescribed under Sec. 25 of the 2013 Act has expired and hence the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed.