Maharashtra Housing and Area v. Krishna Balu Sidhu Bhosale

11th FEBRUARY, 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER : 1st APRIL, 2010 AT 2.35 P.M. P.C. [ PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]: 1 The applicants who are respondent nos. 4 and 5 in Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2009 prayed for review of our order dated 16th April, 2009 passed in the said petition and more particularly, the order of interim injunction. The said order to the extent of interim injunction, reads as 2 under:

T here shall be an interim injunction restraining the respondents from developing or putting up any structure, from using or creating any third party right in the land in question of the petitioners. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to acquire the land, if needed for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2 It has been submitted that along with Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2009, another writ petition bearing No. 264 of 2009 was also heard and interim order which was passed in Writ Petition No.

264 of 2009 came to be inadvertently reproduced in Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2009 and the facts in both the petitions are not comparable/similar. It is also pointed out that when the interim order was passed, the present applicants were not represented before this Court and the said order was exparte as far as they are concerned. 3 The father of the present respondent no.1 and the original petitioner was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 115/6 and an area admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs. from the said plot came to be requisitioned by the Collector, Solapur in terms of notification dated 9th July, 1987 3 issued under Section 5(1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. Similar notification was issued for an additional land admeasuring 100 sq. mtrs. on 18th July, 1987. First notification was for construction of water drain/nallah and the second notification was for construction of 20 mtrs. wide road.

After the order of requisition was issued, negotiations were held by the Collector with the land owners (respondents ’ father) for determining compensation and on 20th July, 1987 the owners of the land in question, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hector. On 24th August, 1987, the Government issued notification under Section 41 of The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 for acquisition of the respondents ’ land admeasuring 2100 sq. mtrs. (0.21 R). The Collector Solapur, by his letter dated 5th January, 1988 called upon the present applicant no.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,75,560/- towards payment of compensation and the respondents ’ father was paid compensation of Rs.20,900/- and after negotiations were held with him, for the area admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs. an additional amount of Rs. 1045/- for the land admeasuring 100 sq. mtrs. was paid. The compensation was deposited with the Collector, Solapur and by his letter dated 15th December, 1988 addressed to applicant no.2, the Collector informed that the respondents ’ father was paid the compensation amount of Rs.20,900/- plus Rs.1045/- by cheque nos.

881491 and 881492, both dated 17th May, 1988. On 8th February, 1990, the Assistant 4 Director (Town Planning) addressed a letter to applicant no.2 that a proposal was forwarded to the Government for final notification for acquisition of the subject plans. However, the Government informed the applicant no.1 that as the possession of the land was already obtained and the compensation was paid to the land owners by negotiations, the final notification was not required to be issued. After 22 years from the date of the receipt of compensation, the writ petition has been filed. It is pointed out that in Writ Petition No. 264 of 2009, the action under Section 41 of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 was not taken and therefore, the acquisition proceedings were infact, not initiated, whereas the facts in W.P.No. 1900 of 2009 were not the same. 4 The relief prayed for in Writ Petition No.

1900 of 2009 is for directions to the respondents to acquire the original petitioners ’ land admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs. and 100 sq. mtrs. and to pay compensation and the prayer for restoration of the land has not been pressed. Thus, even if the petitioners succeed, they would receive compensation for the land already acquired or requisitioned and handed over to the present applicants. In such circumstances, there is no justification in continuing the interim order any further and the facts which have been brought out in this application, were not before us when the order under review granting interim relief, was passed. As noted earlier, the present applicants were 5 not represented before us when the said order was passed. When the claim in the main petition is for compensation for the land already in possession of the present applicants, the restraining order passed on 16th April, 2009 is not required to be continued and the applicants must be allowed to develop the said land for the purpose it was acquired.

5 Whether the land has been acquired or not, by following due procedure is an issue which will be considered in the pending petition along with the amount of compensation or additional compensation, as the case may be, but there is no justification to continue the interim order any further. 6 Hence, this application succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2009 on 16th April, 2009 is hereby recalled. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

[ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]