BALU KALLAPPA MANGAVE (SINCE DECD.) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DIRECTOR AND ORS.

                                                            1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               WRIT PETITION NO. 9925 OF 2017
                            WITH
            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1593 OF 2026
                             IN
               WRIT PETITION NO. 9925 OF 2017

Balu Kallappa Mangave (Since Decd)
Thr. LRs and anr                                    … Petitioners
           V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors                    … Respondents

Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale a/w Mr. Manoj Patil, Mr. Abhishek Ingale,
Ms. Vrunali Vilankar, Mr. Vaibhav Kupawade, Adv. R. Kadam, Mr.
Rohan Parulkar, Mr. Aaryan Sawant, Advocate for Petitioners
Dr. Milind Sathe, AG (VC), Mr. Priybhushan P. Kakade, Addl GP
a/w Mr. Ravi P. Kadam ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w Mr. Atul P. Vanarase,
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

                                CORAM         : RAJESH S. PATIL &
                                                ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
                                DATED         : OCTOBER 6, 2026
P.C.:
1.          In the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

        “(a) Rule be issued and record and proceeding of the case be
        called for;

        (b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
        order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

             (i) To hold and declare that in view of sub section (2) of
             Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
             Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and



                                      1/10
Iresh
                                                           1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx


             Resettlement Act, 2013 the land acquisition proceeding
             No. LQN/Kothali/SR/20/83 in respect of Petitioners
             land bearing Gat No. 539 admeasuring 0-H; 83-R
             situated at Kothali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur is deemed
             to have been lapsed;

             (ii) To quash and set aside the impugned Land
             Acquisition Award dated 06.05.1988 passed by the
             Respondent No. 4 the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer No.
             14 in respect of acquired land bearing Gat No. 539
             admeasuring 0-H; 83-R situated at Kothali, Tal. Shirol,
             Dist. Kolhapur.

             (iii) To direct the Respondents to forthwith initiate the
             proceedings for passing necessary Award of Petitioners
             land acquired bearing Gat No. 539 admeasuring 0-H;
             83-R situated at Kothali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur, a
             fresh under the provisions of Act, 2013 i.e. Right to Fair
             Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
             Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and make
             payment of compensation accordingly to the Petitioners
             immediately within reasonable period.

        (c) To allow this Writ Petition with costs;

        (d) To grant any other just, equitable and consequential relief in
        favour of the Petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
        proper.”


2.        Today before us, the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, on instructions, submits that since the Supreme Court

has delivered the judgment in the case of Indore Development



                                      2/10
Iresh
                                                                  1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx


Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others1, he is not pressing for prayer

clauses (a), (b) and (c) and on instructions, is only seeking the

relief of compensation amount to be paid along with interest.


3.             The learned AG appearing for the State submits that as far

as the compensation amount is concerned, there is no difficulty on

their part to pay the said amount to the Petitioner. However, there

will be no interest payable on the said amount, as the State, after

passing of the award by the Collector, has issued a notice under

Section 12(2) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and there is no

dispute about receipt of that notice in December 1988 by the

Petitioner.


4.              We have carefully considered the judgment delivered by

the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority. As only

interest payable has been in dispute in the present proceedings, in

our view, the said issue has been answered by the Supreme Court

in paragraph nos. 202, 205, 225, 226, and 244, the same are

reproduced herein below:

             “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

1
        (2020) 8 Supreme Court Cases 129


                                              3/10
Iresh
                                                           1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx



        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 penalised 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.


        205. The word “paid” in Section 31(1) to the landowner cannot
        include in its ambit the expression “deposited” in court. Deposit
        cannot be said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is on
        being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a
        tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available
        to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to
        make the payment and in that event such a person cannot be
        penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to
        deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of interest
        under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. Sections 32 and 33 (which
        had been relied upon by the landowners' counsel to say that
        valuable rights inhere, in the event of deposit with court, thus
        making deposit under Section 31 mandatory) provide for
        investing amounts in the government securities, or seeking
        alternative lands, in lieu of compensation, etc. Such deposits,
        cannot fetch higher interest than the 15% contemplated under



                                     4/10
Iresh
                                                            1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx



        Section 34, which is in pari materia with Section 80 of the 2013
        Act. Section 34 is in pari materia with Section 80 of the 2013
        Act in which also the similar rate of interest has been specified.
        Even if the amount is not deposited in Reference Court nor with
        the treasury as against the name of the person interested who is
        entitled to receive it, if Collector has been prevented to make
        the payment due to exigencies provided in Section 31(2),
        interest is to be paid. However, in case the deposit is made
        without tendering it to the person interested, the liability to pay
        the interest under Section 34, shall continue. Even assuming
        deposit in the Reference Court is taken to be mandatory, in that
        case too interest has to follow as specified in Section 34.
        However, acquisition proceeding cannot lapse due to non-
        deposit.

        225. The landowners had argued that the obligation to pay gets
        discharged only when compensation is actually paid and/or
        deposited. Even if it is received under protest under Section
        31(1), it is finally accepted by the landowners post settlement
        by the Reference Court. We are not able to accept the
        submission as Section 34 of the 1894 Act, is clear even if the
        amount is not paid or deposited, it carries interest. The logic
        behind this is that if the State is retaining the amount with
        peace and its liability to pay does not cease, but it would be
        liable to make the payment with interest as envisaged therein.
        Once tender is made, obligation to pay is fulfilled so that the
        amount cannot be said to have been paid, but obligation to pay
        has been discharged and if a person who has not accepted it,
        cannot penalise the other party for default to pay and non-
        deposit carries only interest as money had been retained with



                                      5/10
Iresh
                                                           1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx



        the Government.

        226. Thus, in our opinion, the word “paid” used in Section
        24(2) does not include within its meaning the word “deposited”,
        which has been used in the proviso to Section 24(2). Section 31
        of the 1894 Act, deals with the deposit as envisaged in Section
        31(2) on being “prevented” from making the payment even if
        the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules
        framed under Section 55 or under the Standing Orders, that
        would carry the interest as envisaged under Section 34, but
        acquisition would not lapse on such deposit being made in the
        treasury. In case amount has been tendered and the landowner
        has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that the liability
        arising from non-payment of the amount is that of lapse of
        acquisition. Interest would follow in such a case also due to non-
        deposit of the amount. Equally, when the landowner does not
        accept the amount, but seeks a reference for higher
        compensation, there can be no question of such individual
        stating that he was not paid the amount (he was determined to
        be entitled to by the Collector). In such case, the landowner
        would be entitled to the compensation determined by the
        Reference Court.
        244. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, intends that
        the Collector would have sufficient funds to deposit it with
        respect to the majority of landholdings. In case compensation
        has not been paid or deposited with respect to majority of
        landholdings, all the beneficiaries are entitled for higher
        compensation. In case money has not been deposited with the
        Land Acquisition Collector or in the treasury or in court with
        respect to majority of landholdings, the consequence has to



                                     6/10
Iresh
                                                           1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx



        follow of higher compensation as per the proviso to Section
        24(2) of the 2013 Act. Even otherwise, if deposit in treasury is
        irregular, then the interest would follow as envisaged under
        Section 34 of the 1894 Act. Section 24(2) is attracted if
        acquisition proceeding is not completed within 5 years after the
        pronouncement of award. Parliament considered the period of 5
        years   as   reasonable   time   to   complete   the   acquisition
        proceedings i.e. taking physical possession of the land and
        payment of compensation. It is the clear intent of the 2013 Act,
        that provision of Section 24(2) shall apply to the proceeding
        which is pending as on the date on which the 2013 Act, has
        been brought into force and it does not apply to the concluded
        proceedings. It was urged before us by one of the counsel that
        lands in the Raisina Hills and Lutyens' Zones of Delhi were
        acquired in 1913 and compensation has not been paid. The
        2013 Act applies only to the pending proceedings in which
        possession has not been taken or compensation has not paid and
        not to a case where proceedings have been concluded long back,
        Section 24(2) is not a tool to revive those proceedings and to
        question the validity of taking acquisition proceedings due to
        which possession in 1960s, 1970s, 1980s were taken, or to
        question the manner of deposit of amount in the treasury. The
        2013 Act never intended revival of such claims. In case such
        landowners were interested in questioning the proceedings of
        taking possession or mode of deposit with the treasury, such a
        challenge was permissible within the time available with them
        to do so. They cannot wake from deep slumber and raise such
        claims in order to defeat the acquisition validly made. In our
        opinion, the law never contemplates—nor permits—misuse
        much less gross abuse of its provisions to reopen all the



                                     7/10
Iresh
                                                              1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx



         acquisitions made after 1984, and it is the duty of the court to
         examine the details of such claims. There are several litigations
         before us where landowners, having lost the challenge to the
         validity of acquisition proceedings and after having sought
         enhancement of the amount in the reference succeeding in it
         nevertheless are seeking relief arguing about lapse of acquisition
         after several rounds of litigation.”
                                                       [Emphasis supplied]


5.      After discussing, the law on the subject, the Supreme Court

in paragraph no. 366 has arrived at a conclusion. For the present

proceedings, paragraph nos.366.5 and 366.9 are relevant and

hence are reproduced herein below:

         “366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
         compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the
         1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition
         has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or
         non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to
         pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section
         31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
         compensation or who sought reference for higher
         compensation,      cannot     claim    that    the   acquisition
         proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013
         Act.

         366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
         to new cause of action to question the legality of
         concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24


                                        8/10
Iresh
                                                         1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx


        applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
        enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
        revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
        concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question
        the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen
        proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
        treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

                                            [Emphasis supplied]

6.      In our view, considering the conclusion arrived at by the

Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (Supra) and

more particularly paragraph Nos. 366.5 and 366.9 and the

discussion made by the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 202,

205, 225, 226 and 244, wherein it is specifically observed that

once there is a notice given to the landowner under Section 12(2)

and after receipt thereof, no steps are taken by the land owner, the

obligation to pay is completed. In the present proceedings,

admittedly notice under Section 12(2) was received by the

Petitioner but he failed to collect the said amount, and therefore,

the State, pursuant to the GR dated 1 March 1996, deposited the

compensation amount in the PLA Account, hence, in our view,

interest would not be liable to be paid by the State as the State has

deposited the amount with the treasury. Impugned Award was

passed on 6 May 1988. The present Writ Petition for seeking relief

                                    9/10
Iresh
                                                         1-WP-9925-2017-(C).docx


of lapsing of acquisition proceedings is filed in the year 2017.

There is unexplained delay in filing the Writ Petition.


7.          In view of the same, the present petition fails. Writ Petition

stands dismissed.


8.          In sequel, all Interim Applications/Civil Applications stand

disposed of accordingly.


9.          While concluding, learned AG on behalf of the State

submitted that the State will pay to the Petitioner compensation

amount which is deposited with the PLA Account, and the same

can be done within a period of four weeks from today. Statement

accepted.




(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)                              (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)



        IRESH
                    Digitally signed by
               IRESH MASHAL

        MASHAL Date: 2026.10.09
               17:09:27 +0530




                                          10/10
Iresh