Title: Radhabai wd/o Purushottam Mallawat and Ors. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Decided on: 19.08.2023
+ WRIT PETITION NO. 4772 OF 2017
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
Facts of the Case:
The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are seeking a direction to be issued to the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to determine the compensation payable to them based on an order dated 27.04.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.2285 of 1992.
In the Final Development Plan of the City of Buldhana, an area reserved for the extension of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) was challenged through a writ petition. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise where the petitioners agreed to sell a portion of the land to the APMC. The terms stated that the SLAO would determine the market value of the land, and this value would be accepted by both parties. If the petitioners were unsatisfied with the valuation, they could seek additional compensation through legal means. The APMC was granted permission to enter into this compromise by the Director of Marketing. As part of the compromise, the possession of the land was handed over to APMC, and an amount of Rs.Five lakhs was paid as earnest money.
Issues:
Whether the determination of compensation should be based on the market value as of the date of the compromise (22.02.2006) (OR) whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should be applied.
Contentions:
The petitioners contend that the terms and conditions of the compromise clearly indicate that the SLAO was tasked with determining the market value of the land as of 22.02.2006. They argue that despite their requests, the SLAO and APMC did not initiate the process of acquiring the land and determining compensation based on the agreed terms. They further emphasize that the Act of 1894 was repealed by the Act of 2013, and thus, the compensation should be determined under the provisions of the Act of 2013.
The APMC, on the other hand, asserts that the terms of the compromise explicitly mention the determination of market value by the SLAO, acting as an arbitrator. They contend that the terms were unambiguous and binding and that the petitioners’ interpretation to apply the Act of 2013 was not valid.
Decision:
The court, after considering the terms and conditions of the compromise and the arguments put forth by both parties, concluded that the compensation should be determined based on the market value as of 22.02.2006, as per the terms of the compromise. The court noted that the terms were clear and unambiguous, and the SLAO was intended to determine the market value of the land. Therefore, the Act of 2013 was not applicable in this context. The court directed the SLAO to determine the compensation based on the agreed terms and awarded the petitioners interest on the compensation for any delay in the determination process. The court ruled in favour of the petitioners’ interpretation of the terms of the compromise and granted the relief sought in their writ petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
