Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased Sahebrao Gulabrao Dhamale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer acquiring their land bearing Gat No. 554 in village Patas, taluka Daund, district Pune. The land was acquired for the rehabilitation of displaced persons of Panshet Dam. The petitioners contended that the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 applied, limiting acquisition to 8 acres per family unit, and that the property had been partitioned among brothers after the death of the Karta, with each brother owning a one-third share. They also claimed that 80 Ares of land was acquired and mutation entry No. 1009 was made, and that a civil court had passed a decree declaring the acquisition of 40 Ares as null and void based on an oral partition. The court, however, rejected these submissions, relying on the Full Bench decision in Ganpat Balwant Pawar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, which held that if a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued and the procedure under that Act is followed, the provisions of the Resettlement Act do not apply unless a declaration under Section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 is made. Since no such declaration was made, the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act was valid. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the acquisition award.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Applicability of Resettlement Act - Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 11(1) of Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 - The Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Ganpat Balwant Pawar held that if a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued and the procedure under that Act is followed, the provisions of the Resettlement Act do not apply unless a declaration under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act is made. In the present case, no such declaration was made, hence the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is valid. (Paras 2-3)
B) Land Acquisition - Challenge to Acquisition - Civil Court Decree - The petitioners' reliance on a civil court decree declaring acquisition of 40 Ares as null and void and an alleged oral partition cannot override the statutory acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, especially when the Full Bench decision settles the legal position. The petition is dismissed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of land for rehabilitation of displaced persons of Panshet Dam is governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, and whether the petitioners' challenge based on oral partition and civil court decree is maintainable.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the acquisition award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The court held that the Full Bench decision in Ganpat Balwant Pawar applies, and since no declaration under Section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 was made, the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is valid.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 4
- Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act
- 1976
- Section 11(1)
- Resettlement Act not applicable unless declaration issued
- Full Bench decision in Ganpat Balwant Pawar
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 32
Writ Petition No. 1536 of 1999
V. M. Kanade, B. P. Colabawalla
Mr. S. S. Pakale a/w S. M. Katkar for the Petitioners, Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the Respondents
Sahebrao Gulabrao Dhamale (since deceased through legal heirs) & Ors.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 1, Panshet befitted area Pune & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer acquiring the petitioners' land for rehabilitation of displaced persons of Panshet Dam.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the acquisition award and to apply the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 limiting acquisition to 8 acres per family unit.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed that the acquisition was governed by the Rehabilitation Act, that the land was partitioned among brothers, and that a civil court decree had declared part of the acquisition null and void.
Previous Decisions
A civil court decree declared the acquisition of 40 Ares land as null and void based on an oral partition. Mutation entry No. 1009 was made for the acquisition of 80 Ares.
Issues
Whether the acquisition of land for rehabilitation of displaced persons of Panshet Dam is governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.
Whether the petitioners' challenge based on oral partition and civil court decree is maintainable in light of the Full Bench decision in Ganpat Balwant Pawar.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 applies, limiting acquisition to 8 acres per family unit, and that the land was partitioned among brothers after the death of the Karta.
Petitioners submitted that a civil court decree declared the acquisition of 40 Ares as null and void based on an oral partition.
Respondents relied on the Full Bench decision in Ganpat Balwant Pawar, which held that if a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued and the procedure followed, the Resettlement Act does not apply unless a declaration under Section 11(1) is made.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi is that when a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued and the procedure under that Act is followed, the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 do not apply unless a declaration under Section 11(1) of that Act is made. The Full Bench decision in Ganpat Balwant Pawar settles this legal position.
Judgment Excerpts
In our view, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
The Full Bench of this Court, in a judgment in the case – Ganpat Balwant Pawar & Ors., Petitioners Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., Respondents [1984 Mh.L.J. 752] has held that if a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued and the procedure prescribed in the said Act is followed, in that case the provisions of Resettlement Act will not apply to the acquisition proceedings.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1536 of 1999 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petition was heard by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on March 7, 2016, and dismissed.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4
- Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976: Section 11(1)
- Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986:
