Datta S/O Vaijanath Andhale And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue And Forest Deptt., Mumbai And Others

B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J

Heard finally with consent of the parties by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.

Submission of learned Advocate Mr.Khapre is options exercised by petitioners in the year 2014 Â15 are in ignorance of better rights to

compensation conferred by the new enactment namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the Act of 2013.). The contention is that possession has been taken after coming into force

of this Act of 2013 i.e. after 1.1.2014. Therefore, right of petitioners to receive compensation under the Act of 2013 cannot be denied.

According to them, no objection or consent of petitioners has been obtained in terms of policy decision dated 3.11.2012. As per this policy decision,

a family losing land was entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/Â​ per family in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners opted for a sum

of Rs. 10,00,000/ per family. This policy is also substituted by new policy on 12.10.2015. As per new policy, land owners are entitled to getÂ

compensation as per Act of 2013.  The amount therefore, is more than double the amount which is being offered to petitioners.

Learned Advocate Mr.Khapre further contends that though consent of petitioners was obtained well in advance, possession was not taken and

possession is taken now alongwith others who have exercised options under the government resolution dated 12.10.2015. Therefore, there are two

classes of land owners. All of them are losing possession after coming into force the Act of 2013 but still petitioners are getting less than 50% of the

amount as compensation, while the others, who opposed acquisition and protested, are getting benefit of new policy.

Learned AGP is relying upon the fact that petitioners have taken advantage of the options available under Government Resolution dated

3.11.2012. He contends that petitioners then have chosen compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ per family. This choice was through a Resolution of

gram sabha on 26.1.2013. According to him therefore, such a conscious decision taken unanimously by gram sabha cannot be now defeated or

altered.

Learned AGP submits that when policy decision was taken on 3.11.2012 or gram sabha passed resolution the Act, 2013 was not in picture.Â

Enactment of the Act of 2013 is therefore an unforeseen event which necessitates change in policy, and accordingly on 12.10.2015 a policy in

consonance with the Act of 2013 has been brought into force. He therefore, contends that two different sets of land owners already existing are

being treated distinctly. It is because of coming into force of an enactment in the meanwhile, therefore there is no hostile discrimination.

After hearing respective counsel, we find that though policy decision was taken on 3.11.2012 or gram sabha passed resolution and then the

petitioners indicated there choice, the process was not complete till petitioners submitted their individual options. Individual options are submitted by

the petitioners after coming into force of the Act of 2013. It is not the case of respondents that any of the petitioners have submitted option

before 1.1.2014.

The possession is being taken from petitioners alongwith others after coming into force of the Act of 2013. This fact itself therefore shows that

the respondents could not have taken possession before 2015. Hence, on the date on which the respondents are taking possession, there are two

sets of land ownersÂ​ one being paid compensation as per 2012 policy, while the other, who are being paid as per 12.10.2015 policy. Petitioners

are seeking benefit of the 2015 policy.

Petitioners accepted request of State Government and did not oppose or protest against the land acquisition. Thus, they have tried to coÂoperate

with administration. Others, who did not coÂoperate and protested are getting benefit of new enactment. Petitioners therefore cannot be made to

suffer for the bonafides shown by them or cooperation extended by them to State government. Despite cooperation extended by petitioners, the

respondents were not in position to acquire land. To complete or facilitate that acquisition, State was required to take a subsequent policy decision

dated 12.10.2015. Even if one ignores the event of coming into force of the Act of 2013, the facts noted supra do not permit respondents to act to the

prejudice of law abiding petitioners who coÂoperated with the office of respondents. The liberalised benefit which enabled the respondents to

complete acquisition also needs to be extended to the petitioners. The relevance of the Act of 2013 in present controversy is only to

the extent that while formulating policy in the year 2015, more benefits or compensation is offered to other group of land owners.

The acquisition is being completed after coming into force of the Act of 2013 and the land owners are losing their possession after this event.Â

We therefore, find the justification given by the respondents to deny benefit of liberalise policy to petitioners unsustainable. Those who obstructÂ

or protest can not be allowed to benefit thereby. Respondents can not punish the petitioners for coÂoperation extended by them. Protest,

opposition cannot be seen as ''reasonable differentia'' and can not form a basis for classification amongst land owners. We in this situation, direct the

respondents, to extend the petitioners the benefit of compensation in terms of the liberalise policy as contained in government resolution dated

12.10.2015 within a period of 6 months form today.

Needless to mention that petitioners shall continue to coÂ​operate in the matter. Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.