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 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 after the death of the Karta, the property was partitioned among three brothers, each owning one-third share. They also submitted that 80 Ares were acquired, mutation entry No. 1009 was made, and a civil court decree declared the acquisition of 40 Ares as null and void based on an oral partition. The court, however, relied 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 Resettlement Act does 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 dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' submissions.
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 v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 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 was valid. (Paras 2-3)
B) Land Acquisition - Challenge to Award - Partition and Limitation - The petitioners' claim of oral partition and that only 8 acres could be acquired under the Resettlement Act was rejected as the acquisition was under the Land Acquisition Act, and the civil court decree declaring part acquisition null and void was not binding on the acquisition proceedings. (Paras 1-2)
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 to the award on grounds of partition and limitation under the Resettlement Act is maintainable.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was valid as no declaration under Section 11(1) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 was made. The petitioners' challenge based on partition and the civil court decree was rejected.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 4
- Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act
- 1976
- Section 11(1)
- Doctrine of election
- Resettlement Act not applicable unless declaration under Section 11(1) issued
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 33
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.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the acquisition award and declare that the acquisition was governed by the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, limiting acquisition to 8 acres per family unit.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land bearing Gat No. 554 for rehabilitation of displaced persons of Panshet Dam, arguing that the Resettlement Act applied and that the land was partitioned, making the acquisition of more than 8 acres illegal.
Previous Decisions
A civil court decree declared that the acquisition proceedings in respect of 40 Ares land were null and void, and that there was an oral partition between the parties.
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' claim of oral partition and the civil court decree affect the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 applies, limiting acquisition to 8 acres per family unit, and that after the death of the Karta, the property was partitioned, so each brother's share was less than 8 acres.
Petitioners submitted that a civil court decree declared the acquisition of 40 Ares as null and void based on oral partition.
Respondents (State) relied 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 is issued, the Resettlement Act does not apply unless a declaration under Section 11(1) of that Act 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 the Resettlement Act is made. In the absence of such a declaration, the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is valid and cannot be challenged on the basis of the Resettlement Act or partition claims.
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 before the Bombay High Court challenging the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on March 7, 2016.
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:
