YADAV BHAURAO GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:32483-DB


                                                1              wp 10562-2019.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 10562 OF 2019

                 Yadav s/o Bhaurao Gaikwad
                 Age : 62 years, Occu. : Agriculture
                 R/o. Chandola, Tq. Mukhed,
                 District : Nanded                                        .. Petitioner
                                                                           (Claimant)
                        Versus

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra
                        Through Principal Secretary
                        Irrigation Development Department
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai.

                 2.     The District Collector, Nanded
                        Collector Office, Nanded.

                 3.     The Special Land Acquisition Officer
                        ik-r-y-lh-dk- dz-&2 Nanded.                       .. Respondents

                 Mr. G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate h/f Smt. S. G. Chincholkar,
                 Advocate for the Petitioner.
                 Smt. S. S. Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                 AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                 Date on which reserved for order : 14th July, 2026.

                 Date on which order pronounced : 31st July, 2026.

                 FINAL ORDER (PER KISHORE C. SANT, J.) :-

                 1.     Heard. By consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.


                 2.     This petition is filed seeking directions to respondent Nos. 1

                 to 3 to grant compensation to the petitioner in respect of his land
                             2               wp 10562-2019.odt


admeasuring 29 R from Gat No. 638 situated at village Chandola,

Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded under the Right to Fair

Compensation     and    Transparency    in      Land       Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to

as “New Act” for the purpose of convenience).


3.   It is the case of the petitioner that, he is owner of land

totally admeasuring 147 R in Gat No. 638. Out of the said land 66

R land was acquired by the respondent No. 3 under the Land

Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “Old Act” for the

purpose of convenience). However, no notice was served under

section 4, 5-A, 6, 9, 11 and 12 of the Old Act. The land was

acquired for construction of percolation tank. The land was

acquired long back in the year 2006. In the year 2017 it came to

his knowledge that the land came to be acquired in the year 2006

on going through his 7/12 extract and the award was passed on

18.03.2006. It is his further case that, since no compensation is

paid to the petitioner, he is entitled to a fresh proceeding and

compensation under section 24 (2) of the New Act.


4.   Learned Advocate Mr. Chincholkar for the petitioner

vehemently argued that the petitioner is entitled to receive
                               3             wp 10562-2019.odt


compensation under New Act as the respondents have not made

payment of compensation under the Old Act. He relies upon the

Judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki And Others1 in support of his

submissions that when no compensation is paid to the land owner

prior to 01.01.2014 then the owner is entitled to receive the

compensation as per New Act.


5.       Learned AGP Smt. Joshi vehemently opposes the petition.

The respondents have already filed affidavit-in-reply. She submits

that the land to the extent of 66 R was acquired in the year 2000

itself. The award was passed on 15.05.2000. The compensation is

already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner even thereafter filed

L.A.R. No.636/2003 under section 18 of the Old Act. Later on, a

proposal was forwarded for acquisition of some more land for the

project. Considering the overflow of excess water and for that land

of the petitioner to the extent of 29 R was sought to be acquired

as it was affected by the overflow. In respect of 29 R land section 4

notification was issued in the newspaper on 27.04.2005 and in the

official gazette on 19.05.2005. Section 4 notice was served on

one Madhavrao working in the field of the petitioner. The

1    AIR 2014 (SC) 982
                              4            wp 10562-2019.odt


petitioner at the relevant time was a lecturer working in Mahatma

Gandhi College at Ahmedpur and it is thus the notice was served

upon his servant in the field. The notification was also published

on Chawdi on 04.06.2005. Thereafter a notification was published

under section 6 on 01.12.2005. This notification was also

published in newspaper on 01.12.2005 and in the official gazette

on the same date. Later on notice under section 9 (3)(4) of the

Old Act was also served on the person who was in the field. This

notice was also published on Chawdi. She further submits that the

amount of compensation was also received by the office of Special

Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) vide cheque No. 320605 dated

30.08.2006 and it was credited to the account of S.L.A.O. It is

thereafter on 18.03.2006 award was passed and notice under

section 12 (2) was issued to the petitioner on 29.11.2006. She

accepted that there is no record of service of notice under section

12 (2) to the petitioner. Learned AGP thus submits that, when the

amount is deposited in the account of S.L.A.O. there is no question

of petitioner being entitled to receive compensation under section

24 (2) of the New Act. It is also pointed out that the mutation

entry was also taken in the name of respondents on 04.02.2011

and the same is approved on 16.08.2011 being Mutation Entry
                               5             wp 10562-2019.odt


No.1437. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the petition. The

reliance is placed on the Judgment in the case of Indore

Development Authority Vs Manoharlal And Other2


6.       This Court has heard the arguments and seen the petition

paper book. It is seen that, initially the land to the extent of 66 R

was acquired from the land of the petitioner.          So far as this

acquisition is concerned, there is no dispute. The question is only

about 29 R land acquired in the year 2005-2006. The grievance of

the petitioner is that he never received any notice of the

acquisition in the year 2005-2006. It is therefore required to be

seen as to whether the notice was actually served upon the

petitioner. The petitioner is not in a position to deny publication

of section 4 notification in the official gazette as well as in the

local newspaper. He also could not deny the fact of publication of

notice on Chawdi i.e. conspicuous place in the village.          The

respondent has specifically come with the case that notice was

served on a servant of the petitioner namely Madhavrao who was

working in the field.     Mere ignorance of the petitioner about

proceedings is no ground for the petitioner to say that the

acquisition is without giving notice to him. To become entitled to

2    (2020) 8 SCC 129
                                 6               wp 10562-2019.odt


get compensation under New Act what is required to be shown is

that the amount is not deposited or paid or sought to be paid to

the owner.


7.   In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation And Another

(supra), the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the

amount need to be deposited in the Court to avoid liability to pay

the compensation under section 24 (2) prior to the date from

which the New Act came into force. However, the said judgment

is overruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority (supra) by the Constitution Bench of five

Judges. Paragraph No. 202 in the case of Indore Development

Authority (supra) reads as under :


     “202. Section 24(2) deals with the expression where
     compensation has not been paid. It would mean that it has not
     been tendered for payment under section 31(1). Though the
     word “paid” amounts to a completed event however once
     payment of compensation has been offered/tendered under
     section 31(1), the acquiring authority cannot be penalized for
     non-payment as the amount has remained unpaid due to refusal
     to accept, by the landowner and Collector is prevented from
     making the payment. Thus, the word “paid” used in section
     24(2) cannot be said to include within its ken “deposit” under
     section 31(2). For that special provision has been carved out in
     the proviso to section 24(2), which deals with the amount to be
     deposited in the account of beneficiaries. Two different
     expressions have been used in section 24. In the main part of
     section 24, the word “paid” and in its proviso “deposited” have
     been used.”
                               7             wp 10562-2019.odt




8.    It is thus clear that, even depositing of the money is also not

expected under section 31 (1) of the New Act. What is material is

that an offer or tender of the amount. In the present case, it is

specifically shown by the respondents that the amount was

actually deposited in the account of respondent No. 3. Thus, the

authority was absolved from its liability to make payment under

New Act. The petitioner was also not right in relying upon the

overruled judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation

And Another (supra).


9.    Going further it is clearly seen that, every attempt was made

to serve the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the servant of the

petitioner was also given the notice for which respondents cannot

be held responsible.      From the material brought on record

alongwith affidavit of the respondents it is clearly seen that the

compensation is deposited with respondent No. 3. Notice dated

29.11.2006 was given under section 12 (2) of the Old Act. The

amount of compensation was also determined to be Rs. 44,354/-

including solatium. Thus, it is the petitioner’s failure to accept the

notice and the compensation.       For failure on his own part, he

cannot blame the authorities.        The respondents have done
                              8             wp 10562-2019.odt


whatever is required to be done under the Act. No fault can be

found with the procedure adopted by the authorities and as a

matter of fact, there is no fault in the proceedings. The petitioner

has measurably failed to make out a case for receiving

compensation under the New Act.        The petition also failed on

other ground that the land is acquired in the year 2006. The

petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2019 by

making out a case that only in the year 2017 when he collected

7/12 extract it came to his knowledge that his land is acquired.

This cause of action dated 27.12.2017 is clearly imaginary.

Though this Court is of the opinion to dismiss the petition with

heavy cost, however, considering that the petitioner happens to be

a farmer this Court refrained itself from imposing cost.         No

interference is called for.   Therefore, the writ petition stands

dismissed.

10.      It is open for the petitioner to approach the concerned

authorities and to pray for withdrawal of compensation amount

which is already deposited with respondent No. 3 as per law, if not

already withdrawn.

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.)                 ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )

P.S.B.