Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned land bearing Survey No.94 at Chikhali, Taluka and District Nagpur, admeasuring about 9.56 acres, owned by the land owners (petitioners in Writ Petition No.5492/2019). The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur (APMC), petitioner in Writ Petition No.5351/2019, was the beneficiary of an allotment of 126 acres by the Nagpur Improvement Trust in 1981 for the Kalmana Market Project. Of that, 110.88 acres were delivered, but 15.27 acres remained undelivered. In 2003, the land owners offered the land to APMC at Rs.5 lakhs per acre. APMC resolved to acquire 9.56 acres and allow owners to retain 5.81 acres. A joint application was made on 28.06.2005 to the Land Acquisition Officer. Progress stalled when an Administrator took charge. On 04.05.2012, the Collector informed APMC of a provisional award and required deposit of Rs.12,08,40,720/-. APMC challenged this in Writ Petition No.503/2013; the High Court dismissed the challenge on 05.12.2015, noting APMC had denied title in Section 5A enquiry. APMC's SLP 17353/2016 was dismissed on 03.10.2016 with a clarification regarding benefit for 3.32 acres on main road; review was dismissed on 20.04.2017. After dismissal, land owners requested valuation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Land Acquisition Officer asked APMC to submit a fresh proposal or follow private negotiation policy; reminders were sent. On 19.01.2017, the Information Officer informed land owners that proceedings had lapsed due to non-deposit. Land owners issued notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on 19.06.2017. The Administrator of APMC requested fresh provisional award on 20.03.2018. However, on 12.04.2018, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. APMC challenged that communication in Writ Petition No.5351/2019 seeking quashing and direction to continue acquisition. Land owners filed Writ Petition No.5492/2019 seeking declaration that reservation lapsed under Section 127 of MRTP Act, alternatively that acquisition lapsed due to unreasonable delay, or that compensation be determined under the 2013 Act. The core legal issues were whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applied to acquisitions under the MRTP Act, whether reservation lapsed under Section 127 due to inaction within two years of notice, and how compensation should be determined. APMC argued that Section 24(2) did not apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act relying on Girnar Traders (3) and the Full Bench decision in Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh; that a notification under Section 126 of the MRTP Act had been issued, so no lapse could occur; and that the Market Committee remained interested. Land owners contended that no steps were taken for about fifteen years hence proceedings lapsed, and sought compensation under the 2013 Act. The court heard the arguments on 16.09.2021 and pronounced judgment on 28.10.2021. However, the provided excerpt ends during the submissions of the Market Committee, and the court's analysis and final decision are not included. Therefore, the final outcome cannot be determined from the available text.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings - Applicability of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The Market Committee contended that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked to declare acquisition proceedings under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 as lapsed, relying on Girnar Traders (3) and Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh. The Land Acquisition Officer had declared the proceedings lapsed on 12.04.2018. (Paras 3-5) B) Town Planning - Reservation Lapse Under Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Land owners sought declaration that reservation for APMC lapsed due to failure to take steps for acquisition within two years of notice dated 19.06.2017. The Court was called upon to consider whether provisions of Section 127 were complied with. (Paras 3-4) C) Compensation - Determination of Market Value Under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Alternative prayer sought compensation based on market value as on 01.01.2014. The issue of compensation was raised in the writ petition. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to acquisition proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; whether reservation of land for APMC lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 due to failure to take steps for acquisition within two years of notice; and whether compensation should be determined under the 2013 Act.
Law Points
- Lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Applicability of Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966
- Reservation lapse
- Compensation determination under 2013 Act
