Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Faizal Ismail Sutar, filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. In Writ Petition No.15511 of 2022, he sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra and other respondents to pay enhanced compensation for acquisition of land under Sections 26 to 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 24(1)(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In Writ Petition No.2570 of 2022, he sought a writ of mandamus to refer the matter of apportionment to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 24(1)(2) of the 2013 Act. The petitioner claimed to be the legal heir and representative of late Abdul Karim Suleman Shaikh, his grandfather, by way of an oral Hiba-nama dated 21st April 2006 in respect of land bearing R.S. No.144/A/1 admeasuring 14 hectares (old Survey No.571/A) situated in Village Malakpur, Tehsil Kharad, District Satara, Maharashtra. The land was originally owned by Late Vithal Balkrishna Shikare, who conveyed it under a Registered Mortgage Deed dated 6th July 1938 in favor of Bhau Nagu Yedge and his family members. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to enhanced compensation and that the respondents were obliged to refer the apportionment to the Civil Court. The court, after hearing the parties, allowed both writ petitions, directing the respondents to consider and pay enhanced compensation in accordance with law and to refer the matter of apportionment to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Enhanced Compensation - Sections 26-30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 24(1)(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioner claimed enhanced compensation as legal heir of original owner - Court held that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation and directed respondents to consider and pay the same in accordance with law (Paras 1-2). B) Land Acquisition - Apportionment - Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 24(1)(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioner sought reference to Civil Court for apportionment of compensation - Court held that the respondents must refer the matter of apportionment to the Civil Court as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Paras 3, 24-27).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation under Sections 26 to 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 24(1)(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the respondents are obliged to refer the matter of apportionment to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute. Respondents are directed to consider and pay enhanced compensation in accordance with law and to refer the matter of apportionment to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Law Points
- Enhanced compensation
- Apportionment
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- 2013
- Writ of Mandamus
- Legal heir
- Oral Hiba-nama
