Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court dismissed the last challenge to land acquisition in Mahal for widening of the Kelibagh Road.
After clubbing all the petitions filed by 14 tenants whose properties were acquired for the purpose of road widening, the bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Anil Kilor found no substance in arguments of being not heard and illegality in orders of District Collector and Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition).
Today’s Rate
Monday 30 Sept. 2024
The bench mentioned that since all the petitioners had raised common questions of fact and law and hence they are all clubbed together. The petitioners had sought quashing of Collector’s notification regarding land acquisition and resettlement in respect of their properties on Kelibagh Road. The land was acquired for road widening and was stated to be a public interest project.
Senior Counsel M G Bhangde appearing for the section of traders who mounted the challenge claimed that the entire process of land acquisition should be quashed as the same has violated provision of Land Acquisition Act 2013. The petitioners also sought setting aside the award passed by Collector as to their properties and said the award passed by SDO, Nagpur, and Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, should not be binding on them, and their further claim was that they cannot be dispossessed from their properties in such a way.
The petitioners contended that they learnt about passage of award only on February 19, 2021, whereas the same was passed on October 17, 2020. They further argued that the authorities neither served notices to them, they being occupants and tenants of properties being acquired, nor the landlords intimated about acquisition process. Further they stated the award has not provided any compensation to them, the tenants, as they are having interest in the said properties, and thus it violates Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution.
The division bench noted that there is no way tenancy of petitioners is established as being contented as the respective landlords have not admitted the fact. Thus even Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) admitting their right as tenants does not have any legality and it cited Sec. 18 of Evidence Act. Further in four of five petitions the landlords are not the party, the bench further pointed out while dismissing the claims of traders. As to contention of claim, the HC observed that since the petitioners failed to take remedy available under Sec. 64 of Land Acquisition Act of 2013 they are not entitled to any relief through extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article226 of the Constitution. Finally, while considering the request of Senior Counsel Adv Bhangde, the HC continued inter relief granted earlier for a further period of eight weeks.
