Case Note & Summary
The writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court arose from land acquisition for the second phase of the Bramhagavhan Lift Irrigation Scheme in Paithan Taluka, Aurangabad. The petitioners were 33 farmers from villages Pimpalwadi and Isarwadi whose agricultural lands were affected. The respondents were the State of Maharashtra through its Water Resources Department, the Chief Engineer (Water Resources Division), Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, the Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation Division No.1), the Collector, and the Tahsildar. The first phase of the lift irrigation scheme began in 1987, and lands were acquired with compensation paid to farmers vide award dated 05.02.1990. For the second phase, the respondents decided to lay an underground pipeline from Jayakwadi Dam to irrigate villages. The petitioners alleged that advance possession of their lands was taken by private negotiations, and annual rental compensation was paid from 2010 onwards. Joint measurements were conducted in November 2010 and again in 2011 after the pipeline width was changed from 35 meters to 13 meters. The acquiring body determined compensation rates and submitted a report to the Chief Engineer on 02.05.2014. A revised administrative sanction for a 13-meter-wide pipeline was issued, and the revised proposal was declared on 15.03.2016. Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published, but no final award was declared. The petitioners contended that rental compensation was not paid after 01.04.2013, causing serious hardship, and that the land became unbuildable because restrictions prevented excavation for wells, tanks, or borewells. During the pendency of the petition, the Executive Engineer issued a notice dated 31.08.2019 to acquire the lands under Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Maharashtra Underground Pipelines and Underground Ducts Act, 2018, which the petitioners challenged by amendment. The core legal issues were whether the respondents were obligated to complete acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; whether the notice under the 2018 Act was valid; and whether Section 9(4) of the 2018 Act required invoking the 2013 Act because the underground pipeline rendered the land unbuildable. The petitioners argued that possession was taken on 27.10.2010, compensation was only partly paid, and the underground pipeline would prevent excavation, making the land unbuildable, thereby triggering Section 9(4) of the 2018 Act and requiring acquisition under the 2013 Act. The respondents argued that the work was done through private negotiations, 33 landowners consented, the decided width was 5.10 meters but the petitioners stopped work and demanded 20 meters; rental compensation was paid; the Water Resources Department opined that compensation could be paid under the 2018 Act; and the acquiring body was ready to pay the compensation determined by the competent authority. The provided excerpt contains only the narration of facts and arguments, and records that the matter was heard on 06.05.2022, reserved, and pronounced on 01.07.2022. It does not include the court's reasoning, final operative order, or ratio decidendi, so no decision can be extracted from the text.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Applicability of 2013 Act versus 2018 Act - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Maharashtra Underground Pipelines and Underground Ducts (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2018, Section 9(4) - Petitioners sought mandamus to complete acquisition under 2013 Act and quash notice under 2018 Act, contending that the underground pipeline rendered land unbuildable, triggering Section 9(4) of the 2018 Act which mandates invocation of the 2013 Act - The court heard arguments on whether the second phase of the Bramhagavhan Lift Irrigation Scheme must be acquired under the 2013 Act instead of the 2018 Act; no final holding is included in the provided text - Held not discernible from provided excerpt (Paras 1-7,9). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Enforcement of Statutory Duty to Pay Compensation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioners alleged possession was taken through private negotiations and rental compensation stopped from 1 April 2013, causing serious hardship, and sought direction to complete acquisition and declare award - The court considered whether mandamus lies to compel respondents to complete acquisition under the 2013 Act and pay compensation; no final order appears in the excerpt - Held not discernible (Paras 1,4(g),6). C) Land Acquisition - Private Negotiations and Rental Compensation - Legality of Taking Possession without Final Award - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 6; Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, Sections 49 and 50 - Petitioners handed over advance possession by private negotiations and received annual rental compensation for the period 20 July 2011 to 13 March 2013; respondents took possession but did not complete acquisition or pay compensation thereafter - The court noted that petitioners replied to notices under Sections 49 and 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code requesting acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act; no final determination is present in the excerpt - Held not discernible (Paras 4(b),(g),(h),6,8). D) Administrative Law - Challenge to Notification - Sections 9(1) and 9(2) Maharashtra Underground Pipelines and Underground Ducts Act, 2018 - Petitioners challenged the notification/notice dated 31 August 2019 issued by the Executive Engineer to acquire lands under the 2018 Act, arguing that the pipeline made land unbuildable and the 2013 Act should apply - Respondents contended that the Water Resources Department opined compensation may be paid under the 2018 Act and the acquiring body was ready to pay the determined compensation - The court heard rival submissions; no final adjudication is included in the provided excerpt - Held not discernible (Paras 2,8,9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were obligated to complete land acquisition proceedings for the second phase of Bramhagavhan Lift Irrigation Scheme under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation; whether the notification/notice dated 31 August 2019 issued under Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Maharashtra Underground Pipelines and Underground Ducts Act, 2018 was valid; whether Section 9(4) of the 2018 Act required invoking the 2013 Act because the underground pipeline rendered the land unbuildable.
Law Points
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 may apply where land becomes unbuildable under Section 9(4) of Maharashtra Underground Pipelines and Underground Ducts Act
- 2018
- Mandamus can be sought to compel statutory acquisition and payment of compensation
- Private negotiations do not substitute for statutory land acquisition proceedings
- Rental compensation must be paid for deprivation of use of land until final acquisition
- Notice under Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of Maharashtra Underground Pipelines and Underground Ducts Act
- 2018 can be challenged if 2013 Act is applicable
