Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Panjabrao Borade, filed a writ petition challenging notifications dated 19.3.2014 and 13.8.2014 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). The petitioner also challenged a notice dated 6.8.2012 issued under Section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894). The petitioner sought a declaration that the notifications were ultra vires Section 26 read with First Schedule of the Act of 2013 and prayed for quashing them, as well as a direction to the respondents to calculate the market value of his land by applying a multiplier of two. The land in question, located in village Patoda, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna, was proposed to be acquired for construction of a water storage tank by the Irrigation Department. The petitioner contended that village Patoda is a remote rural area with a Gram Panchayat and not governed by the Maharashtra Municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1966, and that the nearby town Partur is 30 km away. The respondents argued that the notifications were validly issued under the Act of 2013 and that the multiplier of two is applicable only to urban land as per the First Schedule. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 26 and the First Schedule of the Act of 2013, which prescribe different multipliers for rural and urban land. The court noted that the First Schedule provides a multiplier of two for land in urban areas and a multiplier of one to two for rural areas. Since the petitioner's land is in a rural area, the multiplier of two is not mandatory. The court also observed that the Act of 2013 came into force on 1.1.2014 and the notifications under challenge were issued under the new Act, rendering the earlier proceedings under the Act of 1894 irrelevant. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the notifications and rejecting the claim for multiplier of two.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Multiplier - Section 26 read with First Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioner challenged notifications under the Act of 2013 and sought multiplier of two for his rural land. The court held that the multiplier of two is applicable only to land situated in urban areas as defined in the First Schedule, and since the petitioner's land is in a rural area with Gram Panchayat and not governed by the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1966, the multiplier of two does not apply. The notifications were upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Applicability of Act of 2013 - Repeal of Act of 1894 - Section 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court noted that the Act of 2013 came into force on 1.1.2014 and the notifications under challenge were issued under the new Act. The earlier proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were deemed to have lapsed. The court rejected the petitioner's challenge based on the old Act. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notifications dated 19.3.2014 and 13.8.2014 issued under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are ultra vires Section 26 read with First Schedule of the said Act, and whether the petitioner is entitled to multiplier of two for determination of market value of his land.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the notifications dated 19.3.2014 and 13.8.2014 and rejecting the claim for multiplier of two.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 26 read with First Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Multiplier of two applicable only to urban land
- Rural land acquisition governed by separate multiplier
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 provisions not applicable after repeal
