Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, eight individuals residing in Dativali, Thane, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that the respondents—Central Railways, the Ministry of Railways, the Collector of Thane, and the Thane Municipal Corporation—are not entitled to enter upon and use their land bearing Pardi No.1 at Datiwali for railway purposes unless the land is acquired under due process of law. The petitioners also sought an order restraining the respondents from disturbing their commercial premises on the land unless an alternate plot is provided and compensation is paid. The petitioners claimed they had constructed commercial premises on the land, were carrying on a milk business, and were the owners in possession of the entire land. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners' possession or use of the land without following the proper acquisition procedure and providing alternate accommodation and compensation. The court allowed the petition in part, directing the respondents not to enter upon or use the land for railway purposes unless acquired under law, and not to disturb the petitioners' commercial premises without providing an alternate plot and compensation.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Right to Property - Land Acquisition - The petitioners, as owners in possession of the land, are entitled to protection against any interference by the respondents unless the land is acquired under due process of law and compensation is paid. The court held that the respondents cannot enter upon or use the land for railway purposes without following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Paras 2-3)
B) Property Law - Injunction - Alternate Accommodation - The respondents are restrained from disturbing the petitioners' commercial premises situated on the land unless an alternate plot is made available and compensation is paid to the petitioners. The court held that the petitioners' right to livelihood and property must be safeguarded. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents (Central Railways and others) can enter upon and use the petitioners' land for railway purposes without acquiring it under due process of law and without providing alternate plot and compensation to the petitioners.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition in part, directing that the respondents are not entitled to enter upon and use the land bearing Pardi No.1, situated at Datiwali, Taluka Thane, District Thane for any of the Railway purposes, unless the land is acquired under due process of law, and further that the respondents are not entitled to disturb the petitioners' commercial premises situated in the said land, unless the alternate plot is made available and compensation is paid to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Right to property
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Alternate accommodation
- Injunction against dispossession without due process
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 171
WRIT PETITION NO. 441 OF 2002
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, V.M. Kanade
Mr. Rajaram P. Lote for the petitioners, Mr. A.N. Samant for respondent No.1 & 2, Mr. V.S. Gokhale, GP for respondent No.3, Mr. R.S. Apte for respondent No.4
Shri Shaniwar Laxman Patil, Smt. Draopadi Jairam Bhoir, Smt. Shakuntala Anant Patil alias Wayale, Smt. Muktabai Jejeram Patil, Shri Kapil Jejeram Patil, Smt. Kavitha Jejeram Patil, Smt. Tarabai Pundlik Patil, Smt. Ratnabai Abimanu Patil
Central Railways, The Railways (& Parliamentary Affairs) Ministry, Government of India, The Collector (Through District Officer), Thane Municipal Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking declaration and injunction against respondents from entering upon and using petitioners' land without acquisition and without providing alternate plot and compensation.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that respondents are not entitled to enter upon and use the land for railway purposes unless acquired under due process of law, and injunction restraining respondents from disturbing petitioners' commercial premises unless alternate plot is made available and compensation paid.
Filing Reason
Respondents attempted to enter upon and use petitioners' land for railway purposes without acquiring it under law and without providing alternate accommodation or compensation.
Issues
Whether the respondents can enter upon and use the petitioners' land for railway purposes without acquiring it under due process of law?
Whether the respondents can disturb the petitioners' commercial premises without providing alternate plot and compensation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued they are owners in possession of the land, have constructed commercial premises, and carry on milk business; respondents cannot use the land without acquisition and compensation.
Respondents' arguments not detailed in the provided text.
Ratio Decidendi
The respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners' possession or use of their land without following the proper acquisition procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and without providing alternate accommodation and compensation to the petitioners.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners, by the present Petition, seek declaration that the respondents are not entitled to enter into and use the land bearing Pardi No.1, situated at Datiwali, Taluka Thane, District Thane for any of the Railway purposes, unless the land is acquired under due process of law and further that the respondents are not entitled to disturb the petitioners’ commercial premises situated in the said land, unless the alternate plot is made available and compensation is paid to the petitioners.
It is the case of the petitioners that they have constructed commercial premises. That, they are carrying out milk business in the said land described above and are the owners in possession of the said entire land as is confirmed from the...
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 441 of 2002 in the Bombay High Court seeking declaration and injunction. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 24th August 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
