LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-199

BAPUSO NARAYAN KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 16, 2016
Bapuso Narayan Kulkarni Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the Respondents. On the last date, the parties were put to notice that the Petitions will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. In Writ Petition No.11616 of 2014, the challenge is to the Award dated 30th September, 2002 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the said Act of 1894"). The main contention raised in the Petition is that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the said Act of 2013"), acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed. This contention is mainly based on the assertion that the compensation amount has not been paid.

(2.) In Writ Petition No.11259 of 2014, the challenge is to the Award made on 21st January, 2004 under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894. The main challenge is on the same ground as in the other Writ Petition. In both the Writ Petitions, there is an affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government by Dr. Swati K. Deshmukh Patil, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition No.12) Kolhapur. The stand taken in both the affidavits in reply is that though notices were served to the owner/persons interested in the acquired lands, they did not come forward to collect the compensation. Therefore, the compensation amount has been deposited in the Government PLA (Personal Ledger Account).

(3.) On this aspect, the law is no more res integra. These two cases will be governed by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, 2014 AIR(SC) 982. The Apex Court interpreted sub-section (2) of Section 24 while dealing with the issue whether the offer of the compensation to the owner/persons interested will be covered by the word "paid" used in sub-section (2) of Section 24. Paragraphs 15 to 17 of the said decision read thus :