Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shivaji Maruti Mohite, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of his land admeasuring 40 R out of Gut no.355 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Tembhu project. The petitioner's main contention was that prior to the notification under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, an oral partition had taken place between him and his son, reducing his holding to 2 hectares 43 R, which is less than the slab of 8 acres (3 hectares 23 R) prescribed in the Schedule to that Act. Therefore, he argued, his land could not be acquired. The court noted that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.1.1999 and published on 18.2.1999. The petitioner had submitted objections under Section 5-A, but those objections only raised the issue of there being two persons named Shivaji Mohite in the village and that the land of the other Shivaji Mohite was clubbed with his holding. There was no mention of any oral partition in those objections. The court found that the Khata entry showed the petitioner's holding as 3 hectares 96 R, and the plea of partition was raised belatedly in the writ petition. The court held that the contention was totally misconceived and bereft of substance, and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Challenge to Acquisition - Belated Plea of Partition - The petitioner contended that an oral partition with his son reduced his holding below the slab under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, making the acquisition invalid. The court held that the plea was not raised in objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Khata entry showed the holding as 3 hectares 96 R. The contention was rejected as misconceived and bereft of substance. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's land could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, despite an alleged oral partition that reduced his holding below the slab prescribed under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's contention was totally misconceived and bereft of substance.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 4
- Section 5-A
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
- 1986
- Section 11
- Schedule
- Oral partition
- Belated plea
- Khata entry
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 9
WRIT PETITION NO.4931 OF 2000
Mr.P.D.Patil i/by Mr.R.V.More for the petitioner, Mr.R.M.Patne, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
Special Land Acquisition Officer no.5, Sangli, District Re-settlement Officer Sangli, Additional Commissioner Pune Division, Pune, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging land acquisition for Tembhu project under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the acquisition of his land admeasuring 40 R out of Gut no.355.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that an oral partition with his son reduced his holding below the slab under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, making the acquisition invalid.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's land could be acquired despite an alleged oral partition reducing his holding below the slab under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that oral partition with his son reduced his holding to 2 hectares 43 R, less than the slab of 8 acres, so acquisition was invalid.
Respondents contended that the plea of partition was not raised in Section 5-A objections and the Khata entry showed holding of 3 hectares 96 R.
Ratio Decidendi
A plea of oral partition reducing land holding below the prescribed slab cannot be entertained when not raised in objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and when the Khata entry shows a larger holding.
Judgment Excerpts
The whole trust of the petitioner in this Writ petition is that much before the notification was issued under section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act 1986 ... the oral partition took place between him and his son ... petitioner's holding was 2 hectares and 43 R which is less than the slab of 8 acres ... and therefore, petitioner's land admeasuring 40 R out of Gut no.355 could not have been acquired.
The contention of the petitioner is totally misconceived and bereft of substance.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay challenging the acquisition of his land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Tembhu project. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 2.5.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 5-A
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986: Section 11, Schedule
