ROSHAN SHRIKANT TANDEL Vs. COMMISSIONER-KONKAN DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition contends that in the light of an admitted position on facts that the subject land located in Survey No.106/6 was never acquired and compensation was not paid, the respondents need to undertake steps for acquisition of the said land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). It is the case of the petitioner that even though notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) and declaration under Sec. 6 thereof were issued in the context of the said land, for acquisition along with other pieces of land, award regarding the same was never declared; Compensation was not determined and possession was also not taken as per law. Therefore, the proceedings had clearly lapsed, requiring appropriate proceedings to be undertaken for acquisition in accordance with law.

(2.) The relevant sequence of events leading to filing of the present petition is that, on 24/9/1986, a notification was issued under Sec. 4 of the L.A. Act, notifying several pieces of land in Village Karave, Taluka and District Thane, for the public purpose of proposed 'New Town' to be known as 'Navi Mumbai'. The subject land was covered under the said notification. On 14/9/1987, declaration under Sec. 6 of the L.A. Act was issued, which referred to the subject land also. On 12/8/1988, notices were issued under Sec. 9 of the L.A. Act, notifying claims for compensation. The notice was served upon the mother of the petitioner. During the said period, the petitioner was a minor. The statement of the petitioner's mother was recorded on a printed form. Such statements were obtained from all the members of the family of the petitioner, whose lands were intended to be acquired.

(3.) On 31/8/1989, award was declared under Sec. 11 of the L.A. Act. In the award, there was no mention of the subject property in the valuation column and compensation for the said land was also not determined. In October 1989, notices under Sec. 12(2) of the L.A. Act were issued for receiving compensation. On 9/7/1990, possession receipt was executed. The documents show that while possession of the adjoining lands was taken, possession of the subject land was not taken by the respondent authorities.