Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sow. Neha Jitendra Agrawal and Shri Rajendra Madhukar Kulkarni, filed separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the award dated 8th May, 2023 declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, District Jalgaon, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). The petitioners sought to quash the award on various grounds. At the outset, the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State/respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides an efficacious statutory remedy by way of a reference to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State counsel. The court noted that Section 64 of the Act allows any person aggrieved by an award to make a reference to the Authority. The court held that the existence of such an efficacious alternative remedy bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Consequently, the court dismissed both writ petitions as not maintainable, granting the petitioners liberty to avail the remedy under Section 64 of the Act. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the challenge to the award.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 64 - Petitioners challenged the award dated 08.05.2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - State raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability due to availability of statutory remedy under Section 64 - Court held that Section 64 provides an efficacious alternative remedy and writ petitions are not maintainable - Petitioners directed to avail remedy before the Authority (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions challenging the award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 64 of the said Act.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Section 64 RFCTLARR Act 2013
- Maintainability
- Efficacious remedy
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 18
Writ Petition No. 11331 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 11393 of 2023
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, C.J., Arun R. Pedneker, J.
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Suresh Bagul (for petitioner in WP 11331/2023), Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar h/f Mr. Dipesh D. Pande (for petitioner in WP 11393/2023), Mr. Pravin S. Patil, Additional GP (for respondents), Mr. D.R. Kale, Incharge Government Pleader (for respondents in WP 11393/2023)
Sow. Neha Jitendra Agrawal and Shri Rajendra Madhukar Kulkarni
The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik (Land Acquisition); The Collector, Jalgaon; The Additional Collector, Jalgaon; The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Prakalp Hatnur, Jalgaon; The District Agricultural Officer, Jalgaon
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to challenge and quash the award dated 08.05.2023 declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the award under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Issues
Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned Additional Government Pleader argued that Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides an efficacious statutory remedy to a person aggrieved by the award, and therefore the writ petitions are not maintainable.
The learned counsel for the petitioners opposed the preliminary objection, but the court did not record their specific arguments in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 bars the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an award under the said Act.
Judgment Excerpts
By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily, challenge has been made to the award dated 8th May, 2023 declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Dist. Jalgaon under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Acquisition Act of 2013').
At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned State counsel as to the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the availability of a statutory remedy by way of making a reference to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for sake of brevity) under Section 64 of the Acquisition Act of 2013.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 08.05.2023. The State raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The court heard both sides and dismissed the petitions on 13.09.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 64
- Constitution of India: Article 226
