Shivdatta Arjun Nilkanth v. The State of Maharashtra

Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.9829 OF 20221)Shivdatta Arjun Nilkanth, Age 37 years, Occ. Agri.R/o Sadola, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed2)Sk. Mainuddin Abdul Rahim, age 75 years, Occ. Agri.R/o Sadola, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed3)Swarupa Datta Solanke, Age 14 years, minor, through Guardian, Datta Madhukar Solanke, Age 42 years, Occ. Agri.R/o Sadola, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed… PETITIONERSVERSUS1)The State of Maharashtrathrough its Secretary, Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai2)The Divisional Commissioner (R & R),Aurangabad3)The Collector/ Sp. LandAcquisition Officer, Beed Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 2 ::4)Sub-Divisional Officer/ LandAcquisition Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed.5)The Executive Engineer(Acquiring Body)Nandur Madhameshwar Canal (Kalwa)Div. II, No.2, Vaijapur, Head Office at Walmi, Paithan Road, AurangabadAt present The Minor Irrigation Department, Near Moti Bag, Jalna, Dist. Jalna… RESPONDENTS.......Mrs. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for petitionersMr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for State....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2025ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.):Heard. This petition, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, has been filed for the following mainreliefs :“(C)By allowing this writ petition, the compensation rates asdetermined by the District Level CompensationDetermination Committee, Beed, in its meeting dated Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 3 ::28/12/2016 of land acquired as submerged area of Loni-Savangi High Level Dam, at Sadola, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, applying the rates of Jirayat Land to the land of thepetitioners, may kindly be quashed and set aside.(D)The District Level Compensation DeterminationCommittee, Beed be directed to determine thecompensation by applying the rates of perennially irrigatedland/ Barmahi Bagayat land to the lands of the petitionersby giving hearing to the petitioners for finally determiningthe compensation.(E)The requiring body/ respondent No.5 be directed to pay thedifference amount of compensation determined by theDistrict Level Compensation Determination Committee, Beed, after applying the rates of perennially irrigated landto the lands of the petitioners within the prescribed period.(F)The requiring body/ respondent No.5 be directed to pay theamount of interest on the delayed payment ofcompensation from 28/12/2016 to 25/02/2018 to thepetitioners. 2.The petitioners owned agricultural lands in GutNo.49, situated at village Sadola, Taluka Majalgaon, DistrictBeed. The said lands have been acquired for construction ofNandur Madhameshwar Canal. The acquisition proceedingswere initiated way back in 2006. The possession of the landswas taken over in the year 2009. The joint measurement ofthe lands took place in 2012. Till then no award was passed.In the meanwhile, the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 4 ::Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. The StateGovernment issued a resolution in May 2015, authorising theacquiring body to acquire the land through private negotiations.A District Level Committee was constituted for determination ofprice of the lands to be acquired. In the case in hand, ameeting of the District Level Committee took place on14/12/2016. It published the rates at which the lands wereproposed to be acquired.3.The petitioners executed the Sale Deeds on2/10/2018. They received the entire amount of consideration.4.After a lapse of four years post execution of theSale Deeds, the petitioners have approached this Courtclaiming to have not been paid the consideration amountconsidering the lands to be perennially irrigated.5.We have heard the learned Advocate for thepetitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents/ Stateauthorities. It was the submission on behalf of the petitionersthat the petitioners had all along been claiming their lands tobe perennially irrigated. They had even made representation Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 5 ::to the revenue authorities. Pursuant to those representations, the Collector had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to verifywhether the lands acquired were perennially irrigated. TheSub-Divisional Officer, in turn, passed on the directions to theTahsildar concerned, who in turn, asked his subordinate Talathito make report in that regard. The Village Talathi, therefore, paid visit to the lands and prepared the panchanama, statingtherein the lands to have been perennially irrigated. On receiptof such a report, the Sub-Divisional Officer had made acommunication with the Collector about determination of theprice, considering the lands to be perennially irrigated.6.The learned Advocate for the petitioners relied onthe judgment of this Court in case of Murlidhar s/o Rama Veer& ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ PetitionNo.2806/2020, decided on 9/12/2021).7.So far as regards delay in approaching this Court isconcerned, learned Advocate for the petitioners would submitthat, the petitioners had made number of representations tothe revenue authorities and ultimately, after having thepatience to have been run out, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 6 ::this Writ Petition. According to her, the petitioners are poorfarmers and illiterate. They were not called upon to havenegotiations with them for determination of price of the lands. She, therefore, urged for allowing the Writ Petition withdirection to grant the petitioners compensation considering thelands to be perennially irrigated.8.The learned A.G.P. would, on the other hand, submit that, once the Sale Deeds are executed by thepetitioners, nothing remains in the matter. He referred tocertain recitals in the Sale Deeds to submit that, the petitionershave consciously executed the same. The petitioners couldhave executed the sale deed reserving their right to claimenhanced rate/ consideration amount. According to him, theWrit Petition suffers from delay and laches and acquiescenceas well. He would further submit that, the petitioners have notcome with any case of misrepresentation or fraud indicatingthe petitioners to have been induced to enter into the saletransaction. He, therefore, ultimately urged for dismissal of theWrit Petition.9.We have considered the submissions advanced. Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 7 ::Almost all the facts are not in dispute. The petitioners were theowners of the lands in Gut No.49, situated at village Sadola, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. 10.The acquisition proceedings for the said lands wereinitiated way back in 2006. The petitioners handed overpossession of the lands in the year 2009. The jointmeasurement of the lands took place in 2012. The sameindicates that the petitioners were very much present whenmeasurement took place. Whatever the scenario of the writlands was there at the time of joint measurement, thepetitioners would have refused to sign the panchanamasregarding the joint measurement and the map drawn pursuantthereto. Needless to mention, the petitioners have executedthe sale deed. The sale deed is nothing short of a concludedcontract. All the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian ContractAct would come into play with rigour. The petitioners could notbe held to have been not in agreement to execute the saledeed for certain quantum of consideration amount. The saledeed was executed way back in October 2018. A copy of thesale deed is on record. Certain recitals therein need to be Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 8 ::reproduced in verbatim below : " पार्टी(cid:4)क्र. १व२यांचासरळखरेदीविवक्रीचाव्यवहारकरून वसंपूर्ण(cid:27)बाबीचाविवचारकरूनमौजेसादोळाशि"वारातीलगर्टीक्र. ४१५चेएकूर्णक्षेत्र१हे. ४. २५आरपैकी०हे. ८आर क्षेत्रवपोर्टीखराबा०हे. १४आरअसेएकूर्ण०हे. २२आर, हेक्षेत्रपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. १लापार्टी(cid:4)क्र. २विवकतआहे. या खालीलजविमनीचीमूळविवक्रीकिंकमतपोर्टीखराबासहरु.११८६५७/- एवढीहोतअसूनजिजल्हाधि9कारीबीडव जिजल्हासविमतीनेठरवूनविदलेल्याविनयमाप्रमार्णेएकंदरीतदेय होर्णारीविदलासारक्कमरु.४७४६२८/- एवढीहोतअसून एकूर्णरक्कमरु.५९३२८५/- हीसदरीलरक्कमपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. २ला पार्टी(cid:4)क्र. १यांच्याकडूनएकवित्रत9नादे"ाद्वारेज्यामध्येजमीन,फळझाडे, विवहीर, घर, गोठे, पाईपलाईनयांचेमूल्यांकनाप्रमार्णे देयहोर्णारीरक्कमत्यावरविनयमाप्रमार्णेविदलासावइतरबाबीजी. आर. प्रमार्णेविवचारातघेऊनयेर्णारीएकूर्णरक्कमपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. २लाभरूनपावलोआहे. हीकिंकमतकाय(cid:27)कारीअशिभयंताना.म.का.विव. क्र. २वैजापूरमु. औरंगाबादजिज. बीडपार्टी(cid:4)क्र.१ हेपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. २लादेतअसूनतेपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. २लामान्यआहे.”11.It is true that, the petitioners had approached therevenue authorities claiming the land to be perenniallyirrigated. The revenue authorities, therefore, had called uponthe Tahsildar to submit his report. In deference to thedirections of the Tahsildar, the Village Talathi paid visit to theland and drew the panchanama dated 31/8/2017. A copy ofthe panchanama is very much on record. It only recites theland to be “Baarmaahee Bagayat”. The Talathi’s report is silentto state as to how the land is irrigated. Whether there wassource of water in the nature of existence of well therein or Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 9 ::canal or alike. On the other hand, the price of the land wasfixed by the Town Planning Officer. Moreover, the 7/12 extractof the land is on record. The same indicates the land to haveno source of water to have cash crops or irrigate the same.12.The facts of the judgment in the case of MurlidharRama Veer (supra) are quite different than the facts of thecase on hand. In the said case, the authorities concerned hadfirst determined the value of the land, considering it to beperennially irrigated, but granted the rate considering it to beunirrigaged land. In the said judgment, it has been observedthat the principle of estoppel would not be applicable in view ofthe facts and circumstances of the case. The petitionerstherein had approached this Court within a year of theexecution of the sale deed. Whereas the petitioners hereinhave approached this Court after the period of four years. Reverse is the situation herein. The authorities concerneddetermined the rate of the land, considering it to beunirrigaged. The petitioners accepted the same without anydemur. They even executed the sale deed. The recitals in thesale deed indicate the petitioners to have admitted the land to Writ Petition No.9829/2022:: 10 ::be unirrigated. The recitals in the sale deed read thus :" सन२०१८- १९सालीकरर्णेस्थावर"ेतमालकाचेविवक्री पत्रलिलहूनदेर्णारपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. २रा. सादोळा, ता. माजलगाव,जिज. बीडविवक्रीपत्रलिलहूनघेर्णारपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. १लाविवक्रीपत्र लिलहूनदेतआहे. बीडजिजल्हाअंतग(cid:27)तकचेरीचेकक्षेतीलमौजेसादोळा, शि"वारातीलगर्टीक्रमांक४१५म9ीलएकूर्णक्षेत्र१हे. ४. २५आरपार्टी(cid:4)क्र. २भोगवर्टीादारवग(cid:27)१चेताब्यातील वस्वतःच्यामालकीची"ेतजमीनआहेवत्याएकूर्णक्षेत्राची आकारर्णीरु.२. ५३पै. एवढीआहे. जविमनीचाप्रकारजिजरायतआहे.”13.The petitioners have approached this Court with aview to take advantage of the judgment in the case ofMurlidhar Rama Veer (supra). They approached this Courtfour years after the execution of the sale deed. In our view, theprinciples of estoppel bar the petitioners to claim the enhancedamount of consideration, since the sale deed was executedknowing fully well the land to be unirrigated. We, therefore, find no merit in the Writ Petition. The same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. Ruledischarged. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) FMPathan/-