Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Radhabai wd/o Purushottam Mallawat and Ashish s/o Purushottam Mallawat, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Medium Project, Buldhana, to determine compensation payable to them in accordance with a compromise recorded in an earlier writ petition. The background involves a Final Development Plan of Buldhana City where land admeasuring 7 H 44 R was reserved for extension of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Deulgaon-Raja. A notification under Section 126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was issued on 16.03.1990. The predecessors of the petitioners challenged this notification in Writ Petition No. 2285 of 1992. During the pendency of that petition, the parties entered into a compromise: the petitioners agreed to sell 3 H 60 R (9 acres) to the APMC at the prevailing market rate, with fresh valuation by the SLAO to be accepted by both parties. If the petitioners were dissatisfied, they could claim additional compensation in court. The earlier award of 1992 was not to be acted upon. The compromise was recorded in the order dated 27.04.2006. Despite the compromise, the SLAO did not determine compensation, leading to the present petition. The court considered the legal issues of whether the SLAO was bound by the compromise and whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for fresh determination. The court held that the compromise was binding and the SLAO must determine compensation afresh. The court directed the SLAO to pass a fresh award within three months, failing which the petitioners could approach the civil court for additional compensation. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Compromise Decree - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 126 - The petitioners sought direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine compensation as per compromise terms recorded in earlier writ petition. The court held that the compromise was binding and the SLAO must determine compensation afresh as agreed, failing which the petitioners could approach the civil court for additional compensation. (Paras 1-14) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Enforcement of Compromise - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to enforce the compromise terms, directing the SLAO to pass a fresh award within three months, as the earlier award was not to be acted upon. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer is obligated to determine compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of the compromise recorded in Writ Petition No. 2285 of 1992 dated 27.04.2006.
Final Decision
The court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award determining compensation for the land admeasuring 3 H 60 R within three months from the date of the order, in accordance with the compromise terms. If the petitioners are not satisfied, they may approach the civil court for additional compensation. The writ petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Compromise decree binding on parties
- Land acquisition compensation determination
- Section 126 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
