Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the acquisition of land Gut No. 26, admeasuring 2 H. 10 R, situated at Village Ladgaon, Aurangabad, belonging to the original owner Kakaji Appa Bagal, under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for the Shendra 5 Star Industrial area. A notification under Section 32(2) of the Act was issued in October 2010, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 33(2) on 24 September 2010, determining compensation at Rs. 45,40,465. The original landowner had died on 17 October 2010, and his legal heirs (the revision applicants) received the compensation under protest on 22 July 2011, claiming it was grossly inadequate. They filed a Land Reference for enhancement of compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer, seeking Rs. 85,84,555 plus statutory benefits. The officer, however, by order dated 9 September 2011, refused to refer the Reference to the competent civil court on the ground that the deceased father had given consent for a negotiated price, thereby making Section 34(1) of the MID Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inapplicable. The applicants challenged this refusal through the present Civil Revision Application, primarily contending that the Land Acquisition Officer, acting in an administrative capacity, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of the agreement or reject the reference. They argued that the matter must be referred to the court for proper adjudication. The respondents, particularly the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, opposed the application, maintaining that the acquisition was by negotiations and the father had executed a 'Kararpatra', thus barring a reference. The High Court, after hearing both sides and considering various Supreme Court and High Court judgments on the nature of the Land Acquisition Officer's functions and the maintainability of references despite prior agreements or acceptance of compensation, reserved the matter for judgment. The available text does not include the final decision.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference - Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer - Section 34(1) Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Land Acquisition Officer refused to refer the Reference for enhancement on the ground that the claimants' father had consented to a negotiated price - Applicants contended that the officer's function is administrative and that he must refer the matter to the civil court for adjudication of the validity of the agreement - Several precedents including Balbhim Namdeo Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, C.R.A. Nos. 217-219/1999, and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam, 2010 AIR (SC) 112, were cited to argue that acceptance of compensation under protest does not bar a reference and that rejection of the reference would amount to exceeding jurisdiction - Court considered arguments. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer has jurisdiction to refuse to refer a land reference for enhancement of compensation under Section 34(1) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of prior agreement for negotiated price; whether the reference is maintainable despite acceptance of compensation under protest
Law Points
- Section 34(1) of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act
- 1961 read with Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 does not explicitly bar reference
- Land Acquisition Officer's function is administrative
- not quasi-judicial
- acceptance of compensation under protest does not bar a reference
- rejection of reference by officer would amount to exceeding jurisdiction
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 23
Civil Revision Application No. 286 of 2011
Mr. V.D. Salunke (for revision applicants), Mr. V.H. Dighe (A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 3), Mr. S.S. Dande (for respondent No. 2)
Kakaji S/o Appa Bagal (died) through LRs Kaduba s/o Kakaji Bagal, Shahaji s/o Kakaji Bagal, Sayaji s/o Kakaji Bagal
1. The State of Maharashtra Through the collector, Aurangabad, 2. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, 3. The Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging the order dated 09-09-2011 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, refusing to refer the land reference for enhancement of compensation to the competent civil court.
Remedy Sought
Directions to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the reference to the competent court for determination of enhanced compensation.
Filing Reason
The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the reference on the ground that the claimants' father had given consent for negotiated price and therefore Section 34(1) of MID Act read with Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was not applicable.
Previous Decisions
The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 33(2) of MID Act on 24-09-2010 and later, by order dated 09-09-2011, refused to refer the reference filed by the applicants for enhancement.
Issues
Whether the Sub Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer has jurisdiction to refuse to refer a land reference for enhancement of compensation under Section 34(1) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of prior agreement for negotiated price?
Whether the reference is maintainable despite acceptance of compensation under protest?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants contended that the Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to reject the reference; his function is administrative and he must refer the matter to the competent court.
The agreement executed with the father was not valid as per Government Resolution dated 12-10-1993; the authority executing it lacked competence.
Acceptance of compensation under protest does not bar a reference; filing of reference itself manifests protest.
The Collector cannot decide the validity of the agreement; that is for the civil court.
The reference was filed within limitation.
Respondent No. 2 contended that the Civil Revision Application is not maintainable because the land was acquired by negotiations and the father of the petitioners executed a 'Kararpatra', thus a reference is not maintainable under Section 34(1) of MID Act.
Judgment Excerpts
the Land Reference No. 2011/Land/Claim/WS for enhancement of compensation filed by the petitioners is refused to be referred to the competent Court.
the applicants accepted the award under protest and without prejudice to their right to claim enhanced compensation at the market rate.
the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad by impugned order has refused to refer the reference of the applicants to the Court holding that, the claimants father has given their consent for negotiated price of acquired land and, therefore, Section 34(1) of the M.I.D. Act, 1961 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition is not applicable.
Procedural History
The applicants' land was acquired under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. Notification under Section 32(2) was issued on 22-10-2010. Award under Section 33(2) was passed on 24-09-2010. The applicants received compensation under protest on 22-07-2011 and filed a Land Reference for enhancement before the Land Acquisition Officer. The officer, by order dated 09-09-2011, refused to refer the reference. The applicants then filed the present Civil Revision Application.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961: 32(2), 33(2), 34(1)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 18
