1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.4957 OF 2008 Bhagwat Trimbak Sadafal ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. A.B. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. S.S. Dande, Advocate for respondent No. 3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 14th JUNE, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. A notice was issued in the year 1983 for the said 2 purpose. The land of the petitioner was acquired on 28-5-1985 under agreement executed between the petitioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) Sangamner on 25-5-1985. The compensation at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per acre for Jirayat land and at the rate of Rs.27,000/-per acre for Bagayat land, according to the petitioner, was agreed upon. The petitioner further contends that the award was passed on 26-2-1987. The petitioner received the amount under Award probably in the year 1987, according to the petitioner’s counsel. 3) The petitioner filed this petition in the year 2008 seeking directions to the respondents to calculate and pay amount of statutory benefits under sections 23(1A),(2), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had entered into agreement with the State for acquisition of his land and the amount of compensation was agreed upon, the statutory benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner. The petitioner was making representations to the authorities but as the authorities did not consider the representations the petitioner preferred the present writ petition though at a belated stage. The delay, according to the counsel for the petitioner, could be condoned in the light of the fact that the petitioner was making representations. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the reported judgment in Nagesh Waman Patil v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay, 1982 Mh.L.J. 37 in support of his contention that agreement executed between the acquiring 4 body and the claimant regarding payment of compensation does not affect claimant’s entitlement to solatium provided for in section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 5) The counsel alleged that the State authorities had granted such statutory benefits in cases of some land owners but denied the petitioner of the said benefits. 6) The respondent No.3 filed affidavit in-reply. The State also filed affidavit-in- reply. 7) The contentions of the respondents as reflected in the reply are that the petitioner had relinquished his claim of interest. He had entered into agreement with the State authorities, the amount of compensation was fixed and award was accordingly passed. 5 8) The learned counsel appearing for the MIDC placed reliance on reported judgment in State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai, 1995(5) SCC 746. In para 8 of the said judgment the Apex Court observed as under : “8. The question of awarding interest and statutory benefits arises when the civil court finds that the amount of compensation awarded to the landowners by the Collector is not adequate and the prevailing market value is higher than the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 23(1). For entitlement to solatium under section 23(2) “in addition to” market value the court shall ward solatium. Under Section 28, if the court gets power to award interest, when court opines that the Collector “ought to have awarded compensation in excess of the sum which the Collector did award (sic) the compensation”. In other words, valid reference under Section 18 confers jurisdiction on the civil court to consider whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and fair. Thereafter, when it finds that the Collector ought to have awarded higher compensation, the civil court gets jurisdiction to award statutory benefits on higher compensation from the date of taking possession only. In view of the 6 specific contract made by the respondents in terms of Section 11(2), they are not entitled to seek a reference. Consequently, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector or prevailing market value as on the date of notification under section 4(1) to determine the compensation under section 23(1) and to grant statutory benefits.” 9) The counsel for the MIDC further placed reliance on a reported judgment in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar, 2005(4) SCC 264. In para 13 the Apex Court observed that :- “13. The respondents having accepted the award without any demur were estopped and precluded from maintaining an application for reference in terms of section 18 of the Act. It is also trite that by reason of such agreement, the right to received by way of solatium or interest etc. can be waived.” 10) The learned counsel for the respondent - MIDC submitted that the petition 7 is required to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delay. 11) The learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the contentions advanced by the counsel for the MIDC and submitted that even if the other owners were awarded the amount, in law the petitioner is not entitled to get the amount against the statutory provisions. There is abnormal delay in approaching this Court according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 12) Admittedly the agreement was executed between the parties in the year 1985. The award was passed in the year 1987. We find that the petitioner approached this Court after twenty years. There is abnormal delay in approaching this Court which is not satisfactorily explained. A useful reference 8 may be made in this regard to a latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of May George v. Special Tahsildar & Ors. 13) The learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is the duty of the authorities to pay statutory benefits for which limitation is not prescribed. In the facts of the case we find that at such a belated stage we are not inclined to invoke our extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further reliance placed by the counsel for the MIDC on the reported judgments of the Apex Court have substantial bearing on the issue involved. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the petition to interfere in the matter. 14) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.4957.08