The case involves a writ petition filed by Hiraman Yashwant Kathe and others challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) regarding compensation for land acquisition. The petitioners claim their land was wrongly classified as seasonally-irrigated rather than perennially-irrigated, leading to lower compensation. They seek a reclassification and enhanced compensation under the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, which links the compensation framework to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961: Sections 33 and 34.
• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Sections regarding compensation determination and the amendments to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act that reference this law.

1. Introduction (Paras 1-2)

The petitioners challenge the MIDC's refusal to refer their dispute to the civil court under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The primary dispute revolves around the classification of their land, which affects the compensation amount.

2. Core Issue (Para 5)

The petitioners argue that their land was incorrectly classified as seasonally-irrigated, entitling them to Rs. 52.5 lakhs per acre, instead of Rs. 70 lakhs per acre for perennially-irrigated land.

3. Factual Matrix (Paras 6-11)

The government issued notifications to acquire land for industrial purposes. The petitioners entered into agreements for compensation, but later disputed the classification of their land and sought higher compensation. They argue that the crop data used for classification was not available until 2017, which delayed their ability to challenge the compensation.

4. Contentions of the Parties (Paras 7-12)

The petitioners, represented by senior counsel, argue that the land's misclassification under the compensation framework is a clear dispute and should be referred to the Authority under Section 34. The respondents counter that the petitioners' challenge is time-barred, as they accepted compensation in 2015 without raising timely objections.

5. Court's Findings (Paras 13-32)

The court finds that the compensation framework was mutually agreed upon under Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act. Since the compensation was determined through agreement, there is no ground for referring the dispute under Section 34. The court also finds that the petitioners failed to raise their objections within the statutory 60-day period, making their petition time-barred.

6. Conclusion (Paras 33-34)

The court dismisses the petition, holding that the petitioners had agreed to the compensation terms and did not make a timely challenge. Rule is discharged, and no relief is granted.

Ratio:

The court ruled that compensation determined by agreement under Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act is binding, and disputes regarding classification for compensation purposes cannot be referred under Section 34. The petitioners' failure to challenge the compensation within the prescribed time limit further weakens their case.

Subjects:

Land Acquisition, Compensation Dispute, Land Classification

MIDC, Irrigated Land, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, Right to Fair Compensation Act