NAMDEV BHAGWAN KHEDKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these proceedings, two writ petitions have come up for consideration and the reliefs sought therein are such that if Writ Petition No.11150 of 2022 is allowed, Writ Petition No.10352 of 2022 will have to be dismissed. If only the reliefs sought in Writ Petition No.11150 of 2022 are rejected, the occasion would arise for considering the prayers in Writ Petition No.10352 of 2022. This is because the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11150 of 2022 is claiming lapsing of acquisition of his land, while the petitioners in Writ Petition No.10352 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Laxman Wadekar and family ') are concerned with allotment of land as project affected persons, part of which concerns the land in respect of which lapsing of acquisition is prayed for. Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) is invoked while claiming lapsing of acquisition. In this backdrop, the chronology of events has to be appreciated and in that light, the rival submissions shall be considered.

(2.) A perusal of the documents on record shows that the petitioner claiming lapsing of acquisition is concerned with land bearing Gat No.1420 admeasuring 5 Hectares 35 Ares located at Village - Sikrapur, Taluka - Shirur, District - Pune. On 24/12/1997, notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) was issued for acquisition of the said land for project affected persons displaced by Chaskaman Irrigation Project. On 15/1/1998, enquiry was initiated under Sec. 5A of the L.A. Act for the proposed acquisition. The father of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11150 of 2022 submitted an objection on the ground that the aforesaid land did not fall in the beneficial zone of the Chaskaman Irrigation Project. An enquiry conducted in the context of the said objection indicated that the said land did not fall in the beneficial zone. The Executive Engineer of Chaskaman Irrigation Project, by a letter dtd. 9/10/1997 addressed to the father of the said petitioner i.e. the objector, categorically stated that the said land located in Gat No.1420 did not fall in the beneficial zone.

(3.) On 12/1/1999, declaration under Sec. 6 of the L.A. Act was issued, which included land to the extent of 1 Hectare 61 Ares from Gat No.1420. On 15/12/1999, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) sent a letter to the Collector, specifically stating that the aforesaid piece of land admeasuring 1 Hectare 61 Ares from Gat No.1420 can be excluded from acquisition. In this backdrop when the land acquisition award was passed on 29/2/2000 under Sec. 11 of the L. A. Act in respect of the subject land, it was specifically recorded that after the award is passed, in terms of the objections raised for deletion of the said land from acquisition, a proposal for deletion under Sec. 48(1) of the L. A. Act would be submitted before the Commissioner. On 2/8/2000, the SDO sent a letter to the District Rehabilitation Officer at Pune to delete the aforesaid piece of land from Gat No.1420. It is significant to note that in the said letter, it was recorded that possession of the said piece of land was not taken.