wp-4786-2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4786 OF 2018

Chandrabhan Sukdev Sangle and Others … Petitioners

vs.

The Competent Authority @ Dy. Collector

(Acquisition) Irrigation No.1, Nashik and Others… Respondents

Mr. Pramod Joshi a/w. Mr. Pratik Rahade, for petitioners.

Mr. O.A. Chandurkar a/w. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent

Nos. 1, 4 and 7.

Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., for Respondent No. 2 -NHAI.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ

RESERVED : 23

rd

MARCH, 2026

PRONOUNCED : 5

th

MAY, 2026

----------------

JUDGMENT (Per Manish Pitale, J.)

1. The petitioners approached this Court by filing this Writ

Petition, being aggrieved by the manner in which acquisition of their

lands was initiated in Gut No. 897 of village Pangarwadi (Shivar), Tal.

Sinnar, Dist. Nashik. The acquisition process culminated in the award

dated 25

th

November, 2011, but, in this Writ Petition filed in February,

2017, the petitioners claimed that the initiation of the acquisition

process itself was rendered defective because of lack of proper

description of the portion of land from Gut No. 897 that was acquired

Vishal Parekar ...1

VISHAL

SUBHASH

PAREKAR

Digitally signed by

VISHAL SUBHASH

PAREKAR

Date: 2026.05.05

15:14:25 +0530

wp-4786-2018.doc

for the purpose of National Highway No.50 between Pune and

Nashik.

2. At the point in time when the Writ Petition was filed, the

petitioners were still in possession of the subject land and it was

asserted that the petitioners and other villagers had been continuously

representing to the authorities that the alignment of the highway was

inappropriate whereby the portion of their land consisting of Wells was

being acquired instead of dry land and other grievances were also

raised. It was also the case of the petitioners that the defects regarding

improper measurement and identification of the portion of the lands

under acquisition was relevant with regard to the lands situated in Gut

Nos. 896, 897 and 908. It was alleged that in respect of the lands in

adjoining Gut Nos. 896 and 908 re-measurement was undertaken and

it was conceded by the authorities that there was defect requiring

rectification. The petitioners were discriminated against, as no such

exercise was undertaken for the petitioners, further alleging that the

land owners of the said adjoining Gut numbers were politically

influential persons.

3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, on 24

th

May, 2017,

the possession of the lands of the petitioners was taken. According to

Vishal Parekar ...2

wp-4786-2018.doc

the petitioners, this was done in a clandestine manner and forcibly

while the petitioners were at the office of the Collector raising their

grievances in respect of the aforesaid defects in the acquisition process.

Even post dis-possession, the petitioners continued to agitate with

regard to the said grievances. The Writ Petition was amended to add a

prayer with regard to lapsing of acquisition under Section 24 of the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to

“Act, 2013”). But, at the time of arguments, the said prayer was not

pressed on behalf of the petitioners.

4. The documents filed along with Writ Petition show that the

notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of National Highways Act,

1956 (“Act, 1956”) were issued stating that the land from aforesaid Gut

No. 897 was only being partly acquired. The notification recorded

acquisition from Gut No. 897(Part) to the extent of 0.88 R and the

land was simply described as “agricultural land- dry”. On the basis of

such description of the land proposed to be acquired, eventually, the

said award dated 25

th

November, 2011 was issued. The petitioners

refused to accept the compensation and protested, as according to the

them, the description of the land in the notification was defective and

deficient and that such an objection was raised on their behalf

Vishal Parekar ...3

wp-4786-2018.doc

immediately upon such notification being issued during the acquisition

process. Despite the objection, the process was completed, culminating

into the said award. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 2

National Highway Authority of India represented by the Executive

Engineer, National Highway, Division No. 9, Nashik failed to take

possession of the lands and did not commence any activity for

construction of the highway for a long period of time. It was stated that

the possession of the land was taken in May, 2017 during the pendency

of the Writ Petition. Although various prayers were made in the Writ

Petition at the stage of arguments much emphasis was placed on the

documents filed along with the rejoinder affidavit to claim that the

exercise of the measurement carried out demonstrated the actual area

of the land utilized for construction of the road was 0.93 R and not

0.88 R. Reliance was also placed on the fact that the respondents in the

year 2017 proceeded to grant compensation to similarly situated

individuals in the adjoining Gut No. 896 on the basis of private

negotiations under the Act, 2013, conceding that there was a defect in

the measurement and description of the land in the earlier notification.

5. The respondents filed their reply affidavits, alleging that the

petition suffers from delay and laches as the award was already passed

on 25

th

November, 2011, while the petition was filed in the year 2017.

Vishal Parekar ...4

wp-4786-2018.doc

It was submitted that since the petitioners refused to accept the

compensation, the same was deposited in a separate account, which the

petitioners could collect. It was further submitted that there was no

question of lapsing of acquisition of section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It

wasalso submitted that the petitioners were not justified in staking

claim for enhanced compensation on alleged defective description of

the land acquired from Gut No. 897.

6. As noted here-in-above, apart form refuting the contentions of

the respondents in the rejoinder affidavit, the aforementioned

submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners and certain

documents were placed on record. It is in this backdrop that the rival

submissions were heard.

7. Mr. Pramod Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that when the Writ Petition was filed and possession of the subject land

was yet to be taken, the petitioners had placed on record sufficient

documents to indicate that even as per the office of respondent No. 6-

the Superintendent of Land Records, Nashik through its Dy.

Superintendent, there was indeed a defect in the joint measurement

conducted for all the three adjoining Gut Nos. 896, 897 and 908 of

the aforesaid village. Thereafter, rectification was made only in respect

Vishal Parekar ...5

wp-4786-2018.doc

of the joint measurement pertaining to Gut No. 896 and 908, for the

reason that the land owners were politically powerful persons, unlike

the petitioners in the present petition.

8. It was further submitted that the description of the land in

notification issued under section 3A of the Act, 1956, was

fundamentally defective and deficient as the land of the petitioners for

acquisition was merely stated to be 0.88 R from Gut No. 897(P)

further described as “agricultural land – dry”. Despite such description,

the respondents eventually took possession of that part of land from

Gut No. 897, which consisted of at least four Wells that were the only

source of water for the petitioners, who are farmers. This further

demonstrated the fact that the very initiation of the acquisition process

was rendered defective. In this context, the learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and

Others

1

. It was submitted that in a similar situation, the Supreme

Court held that such a defective notification deserves to be set aside,

which would pave the way for acquisition of the land afresh. But, the

Supreme Court finally held that the quashing of the notification may

lead to further complications and therefore, the respondent- authority

1

(2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 477.

Vishal Parekar ...6

wp-4786-2018.doc

therein was directed to determine the compensation afresh by treating

the date of taking possession of the subject land as the relevant date for

determining the quantum of compensation. It was submitted that the

said judgment applies on all fours to the facts of the present case and

therefore similar reliefs ought to be granted.

9. It was alternatively submitted that since the petitioners in the

rejoinder affidavit had placed on record the joint measurement and

map drawn at the instance of the petitioners, showing obvious defects

in the description of the land under acquisition and the extent of the

land actually taken possession of, coupled with the fact that identically

situated land owners in the adjoining Gut No. 896 were granted

enhanced compensation by private negotiation under the Act, 2013,

this Court may consider granting quantum of compensation, identical

to the one granted to such land owners in the adjoining Gut number.

10. In this context, attention of this Court was invited to a letter

dated 20

th

November, 2017 issued by respondent No. 2 – Executive

Engineer, National Highway, Division No. 9, Nashik, conceding that

there was a defect in the intended acquisition initiated as per the same

notification which pertains to the land of the petitioners also and

offered compensation @ Rs. 4,240/- per sq. mtr. It was emphasized

Vishal Parekar ...7

wp-4786-2018.doc

that surprisingly on the very next day on 21

st

November, 2017, Sale

Deeds were executed with such identically situated land owners.

Therefore, the petitioners had instructed their counsel in this petition

to make a statement that they would be satisfied if compensation for

acquisition of their lands is granted at the same rate of Rs. 4,240/- per

sq. mtr. to put an end to the controversy. On this basis, the learned

counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Writ Petition could be

allowed by granting such enhanced rate of compensation.

11. Mr. Chandurkar, learned AGP appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 7 submitted that the petition suffers from

delay and laches. It was too late in the day for the petitioners to claim

enhanced compensation, particularly when they had not chosen to take

recourse to the remedy available under the Act, 1956, by approaching

the Arbitrator for enhanced compensation. It was further submitted

that the petitioners cannot take advantage of the aforesaid judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of Barangore Jute Factory and Ors.

(supra) for the reason that the facts are distinguishable. It was further

submitted that the land owners in the adjoining Gut No. 896 were

offered compensation, because it was found as a matter of fact that

there was defect in joint measurement and additional area of 0.53 R

was utilized for construction of the National Highway, justifying the

Vishal Parekar ...8

wp-4786-2018.doc

offer made in the year 2017. It was submitted that there was absolutely

no ground for claiming lapsing of acquisition under section 24(2) of

the Act, 2013. On this basis, it was submitted that the Writ Petition

deserved to be dismissed.

12. Mr. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No. 2 representing NHAI supported the contentions of the learned

AGP. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot raise ground of

discrimination, for the reason that the land owners of Gut No. 896

were not similarly situated like the petitioners. In any case, it was

submitted that the petitioners did not raise any objection for long

period of six years and therefore, the Writ Petition cannot be

entertained for the relief of setting aside of the land acquisition award

and/or for any relief pertaining to enhanced mandatory compensation.

It was submitted that the work pertaining to National Highway was

completed in the year 2022 itself and therefore the Writ Petition

deserved to be dismissed.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, we find,

that, at the point in time the Writ Petition was filed, the petitioners

were still in possession of the subject land. It was during the pendency

of the petition that in May, 2017, they stood dispossessed. The

Vishal Parekar ...9

wp-4786-2018.doc

documents on record show that the petitioners had been sending

representations to the respondents, particularly the officers concerned

with the acquisition process, raising specific grounds with regard to

lack of proper identification of the portion of land belonging to them

in Gut No. 897, which was made subject matter of acquisition. The

record shows such representations sent from the year 2012 onwards.

Even though, the award was issued on 25

th

November, 2011, it is found

that even during the acquisition process, the petitioners had raised

strong objection about the portion of land from Gut No. 897 being

acquired by the respondents. The petitioners claimed that the

alignment of acquisition had been deliberately changed to favour

certain politically powerful individuals and in the process their land

consisting of Wells full of water was sought to be taken under

acquisition, instead of dry land located within the said Gut No. 897.

14. It is a matter of record that although the land acquisition award

was issued on 25

th

November, 2011, the actual possession of the land

was not taken till May, 2017. In the interregnum, the land owners,

similarly situated like the petitioners from adjoining Gut Nos. 896 and

908 had also made representations and protested with regard to the

manner in which the acquisition had been undertaken. The documents

on record show that meetings were held in the office of the Collector to

Vishal Parekar ...10

wp-4786-2018.doc

resolve the disputes.

15. In this backdrop, the document at Exhibit A assumes

significance. It is a letter dated 2

nd

August, 2016 sent by the Dy.

Superintendent of Land Records, Sinnar, Dist. Nashik to the Sub

Divisional Officer, National Highway, Sub Division- II, Nashik. This

letter specifically pertained to Gut Nos. 896, 897 and 908, from which

lands were acquired for construction of the said National Highway. In

this letter, it was specifically stated that the joint measurement

undertaken at the time of initiating acquisition was done in a hurried

manner under police protection and specific boundary lines were not

identified at the time when the measurement was undertaken. It was

further stated that there was request for proper joint measurement in

the said Gut numbers and therefore if the boundary lines and areas of

the land actually acquired for the purpose of National Highway were

identified, it would help in resolving the controversy. Thereafter, the

said Dy. Superintendent, Land Records, Sinnar sent a further

communication dated 8

th

July, 2016 to the said competent authority,

which is at page 33 of the petition. On this occasion, a reference was

made only to lands in Gut Nos. 896 and 908. It was stated that a joint

measurement in respect of the said land was undertaken and it was

found that there were deficiencies and inaccuracies. These were

Vishal Parekar ...11

wp-4786-2018.doc

corrected and a report pertaining to such joint measurement along with

the map were annexed to the said letter.

16. Thereafter on 20

th

November, 2017, the respondent No. 2

Executive Engineer, National Highways, Nashik sent a letter to the

land owners similarly situated like the petitioners having land in Gut

No. 896. In this letter, reference was made to the aforementioned two

letters sent by the Dy. Superintendent of Land Records and it was

stated that upon correction of the deficiency or inaccuracy in joint

measurement, it was found as regards the said land owner that instead

of 0.28 R of land, 0.81 R land from Gut No. 896 had been utilized for

construction of the said National Highway, thereby indicating that an

additional area of 0.53 R was required to be taken into consideration

for the purposes of compensation. Thereupon, respondent No. 2

offered compensation @ Rs. 4,240/- per sq. mtr. to the said land

owner. This was based on an earlier letter dated 29

th

September, 2017

sent by the Competent Authority and Dy. Collector (Land

Acquisition) to the respondent No.2, referring to the said defect being

cured and the offer for enhanced compensation being made. It is also a

matter of record that immediately on 21

st

November, 2017, Sale Deeds

were executed in favour of the said land owners granting them

compensation/consideration @ Rs. 4,240/- per sq. mtr.

Vishal Parekar ...12

wp-4786-2018.doc

17. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the

petitioners that the inherent defect in the joint measurement and

consequent depiction of the area of land under acquisition for

construction of the National Highway, pertain to such lands that were

the subject matter of the notification issued under section 3A of the

Act, 1956. The defect pertained to adjoining Gut numbers i.e. 896,

897 and 908. This is evident from the said letter dated 2

nd

August,

2016 sent by the Dy. Superintendent, Land Records, Sinnar to

respondent No. 2. We also find substance in the contention raised on

behalf of the petitioners that having found such a defect, running

through the said adjoining Gut numbers, the rectification was done

only in respect of the lands in Gut Nos. 896 and 908, thereby

discriminating against the petitioners whose lands were located in Gut

No. 897. The documents on record show that the petitioners had been

repeatedly approaching the respondent- authorities with an identical

grievance and yet relief appears to have been granted to a chosen few

land owners in the adjoining Gut numbers.

18. The documents on record also show that the land that was

eventually taken possession of by the respondents consisted of Wells,

which were the source of water for the petitioners who are

agriculturists, despite the fact that the description of the land given in

Vishal Parekar ...13

wp-4786-2018.doc

the notification under section 3A of the Act, 1956, stated that they

were dry agricultural lands.

19. This brings us to the specific contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioners on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Barangore Jute Factory and Ors. (supra). In the said case, the

Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Act, 1956, and the

necessity of describing the lands proposed to be acquired, in a proper

manner in the notification issued under section 3A of the Act, 1956,

when only part of land from a Gut number was being acquired. Since

the said judgment covers the arguments made by the rival parties in

this petition also, the relevant portion of the said judgment is required

to be appreciated. The said portion from the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Barangore Jute Factory and Ors. (supra) reads as

follows:-

4] ….. ….The appendix contains a long list of various portions

of lands sought to be acquired. The list runs into more than 10 pages

in the paper book. We have chosen to reproduce only a small portion

of the appendix in order to appreciate the rival contentions of the

learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the writ

petitioners submitted that the purpose of giving a brief description

of the land sought to be acquired is that the person whose land is to

be taken away, should at least know what he is being deprived of.

This becomes all the more necessary when only a part of the land

out of a bigger chunk of land is sought to be acquired. A reference to

the Tables forming part of the appendix, which according to the

acquiring Authority contain brief description of the land, will show

that under various heads, only part of bigger chunks of land is being

acquired. If the entire land falling in a particular survey is acquired,

there cannot be any problem of identi�cation of land. But when only

a part of land out of larger tract of land is sought to be acquired, the

question arises which part is going to be acquired. For instance in

Vishal Parekar ...14

wp-4786-2018.doc

the �rst Table full area of land in Dag No.1448 at Serial No.3 is 17

acres as per column 5. Column 7 indicates that only a part of the said

17 acres is being acquired and as per Column 8, the part which is

sought to be acquired is 2.7500 acres. This means out of 17 acres

only 2.7500 acres is being acquired. The question will arise as to

which side this part which is sought to be acquired is falling, it could

be anywhere on the northern, southern, western, eastern sides or in

the centre. How is one to know which part is under acquisition?

Similar position emerges with reference to other serial numbers

where only part of larger chunks of land is being acquired. Such

cases are several when we look at the entire Appendix and the

Tables forming part of it. According to the learned counsel for the

writ petitioners, the absence of information as to which part of the

land is being acquired makes the description insu�cient, rather

vague. The owners are not in a position to identify the land under

acquisition. It also renders it impossible to make claim regarding

compensation for the land under acquisition because it is a matter of

common knowledge that in bigger tracts of land, certain areas on a

particular side are more valuable than the others. The absence of

proper description of land makes it impossible to �le objection

against acquisition. For all these reasons it is argued on behalf of the

land owners that the statutory requirement of a brief description of

land is not ful�lled. According to the Writ Petitioners non-

compliance of sub- section (2) of Section 3A renders the

Noti�cation invalid and the same is therefore, liable to be quashed.

5] ….. ……… So far as the question whether the impugned

Noti�cation meets the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act

regarding giving brief description of land is concerned, we have

already shown that even though plot numbers of land in respect of

each mouza are given, di�erent pieces of land are acquired either as

whole or in part. Wherever the acquisition is of a portion of a bigger

piece of land, there is no description as to which portion was being

acquired. Unless it is known as to which portion was to be acquired,

the petitioners would be unable to understand the impact of

acquisition or to raise any objection about user of the acquired land

for the purposes speci�ed under the Act or to make a claim for

compensation. It is settled law that where a statute requires a

particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be

done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given

its due meaning. In our view, the impugned noti�cation fails to meet

the statutory mandate. It is vague. The least that is required in such

cases is that the acquisition noti�cation should let the person whose

land is sought to be acquired know what he is going to lose. The

impugned noti�cation in this case is, therefore, not in accordance

with the law.

6] While dealing with the question of brief description of land in the

acquisition noti�cations, reference was made to some judgments of

this Court where acquisition Noti�cations under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act had come up for consideration on account of

challenge being leveled on ground of vagueness of the Noti�cations.

In most of these cases, Plan of the area under acquisition was made

Vishal Parekar ...15

wp-4786-2018.doc

part of the noti�cations to show that the requirement of description

of land was met. This lead us to inquire whether there was any site

plan forming part of the impugned Noti�cation.

7] The availability of a Plan would have made all the di�erence. If

there is a Plan, the area under acquisition becomes identi�able

immediately. The question whether the impugned Noti�cation

meets the requirement of brief description of land under Section

3A(2) goes to the root of the matter. The High Court rightly

observed : "…..It is just not possible to proceed to determine the

necessity of acquisition of a particular plot of land without

preparation of a proper Plan." The appendix to the impugned

noti�cation shows that in many cases small parts of larger chunks of

land have been noti�ed for acquisition. This is not possible without

preparing a Plan. But where is the Plan? The Noti�cation in

question makes no reference to any Plan. Our attention was drawn to

averments in pleadings by Writ Petitioners and replies thereto of the

acquiring authority. The Writ Petitioners have pleaded that there

was no Plan. Replies are vague and by way of rolled up answers.

There is no speci�c reply. It is obvious that there was no Plan and

therefore none was referred to in pleadings nor any thing was

produced before Court at the hearing. Learned counsel for the

Competent Authority tried to submit before us that there was a Plan

at the time of issue of the noti�cation and the Writ Petitioners ought

to have inspected it if they so desired. He further submitted that the

Plan was produced before the High Court. We �nd that both these

submissions are not sustainable as they are not correct. A reference

to the impugned Noti�cation shows that there is no mention of any

Plan. Without this how can anybody know that there was a Plan

which could be inspected and inspected where? We are inclined to

accept that there was no Plan accompanying the impugned

Noti�cation. During the course of hearing we were shown a Plan

which we are unable to link with the impugned Noti�cation. This

was a 1996 P.W.D.Plan. The P.W.D. is a department of the State

Government. The impugned Noti�cation is by the Central

Government. The NHAI is established under a Central Act. The

Competent Authority under Section 3 of the Act is appointed by the

Central Government. Therefore, this State Government Plan of

1996 (the impugned Noti�cation is of 1998) is of no assistance. The

impugned judgment of the High Court emphasises the need for a

Plan. It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that no Plan

was produced before it. The absence of any reference to a Plan in the

impugned Noti�cation and in fact non-availability of any Plan linked

to the Noti�cation, forti�es the argument that the description of the

land under acquisition in the impugned Noti�cation fails to meet the

legal requirement of a brief description of the land which renders

the Noti�cation invalid.

8] The absence of plan also renders the right to �le objections under

Section 3C(1) nugatory. In the absence of a Plan, it is impossible to

ascertain or know which part of acquired land was to be used and in

what manner. Without this knowledge no objections regarding use of

land could be �led. Since the objection regarding use of the land had

Vishal Parekar ...16

wp-4786-2018.doc

been given up by the writ petitioners, we need not go any further in

this aspect. We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5A of

the Land Acquisition Act,1894 which confers a general right to

object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section

3C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to

object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under

acquisition for purposes other than those under sub-section 3A(1).

The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. This

answers the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

NHAI that failure to �le objections disentitles Writ Petitioners to

object to the acquisition. The Act confers no general right to object,

therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel

relied on the judgment of this court in Delhi Administration vs.

Gurdip Singh Uban & Others [(1999) 7 SCC 44]. In our view, this

judgment has no application in the facts of the present case where

right to object is a very limited right. The case cited is a case under

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to

object to acquisition of land under Section 5A. Failure to exercise

that right could be said to be acquiescence. The National Highways

Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object

to acquisition of land except on the question of its user. Therefore,

the present objection has to be decided independently of the right to

�le objections. De hors the right to �le objection, the validity of the

Noti�cation has to be considered. Failure to �le objection to the

noti�cation under Section 3C, therefore, cannot non-suit the Writ

Petitioners in this case.

9] The learned counsel supporting the acquisition submitted that

the delay in �ling the Writ Petition is fatal to the case of land

owners. It is true that 11th June, 1998 Noti�cation was challenged

only in September, 2001 by �ling the Writ Petition. But if the

Noti�cation violates the very statute from which it derives its force,

will delay in challenging it clothe it with legitimacy? The Act

requires the Noti�cation to be issued in a particular manner with

brief particulars of land being acquired. The Noti�cation in this case

fails to meet this requirement. We have held it to be bad in law. It has

no legs to stand. The conduct of the opposite party cannot be used

to make it stand. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners have explained the

reasons for the delay in �ling the Writ Petition. The Company which

owns the lands had been de-registered. It is a Company registered in

the U.K. It had to be revived. Revival came in mid-2001 whereafter

the action was taken. Thus we �nd no merit in the argument about

delay in challenging the Noti�cation rendering the challenge liable

to be rejected.

.. ……

14] Having held that the impugned noti�cation regarding acquisition

of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements

and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ

petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said noti�cation

was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief

can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed

Vishal Parekar ...17

wp-4786-2018.doc

that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of

great national importance, i.e. the construction of a national

highway. The construction of national highway on the acquired land

has already been completed as informed to us during the course of

hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned

noti�cation at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal

position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh

noti�cation for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned

noti�cation being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that

keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of

compensation payable to the land owners may be more. Therefore,

the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation

payable to the land owners. Quashing of the noti�cation at this stage

will give rise to several di�culties and practical problems. Balancing

the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in

quashing the impugned noti�cation, we are of the view that a better

course will be to compensate the land owners, that is, writ

petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of.

Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action.

15] Normally, compensation is determined as per the market price of

land on the date of issuance of the noti�cation regarding acquisition

of land. There are precedents by way of judgments of this Court

where in similar situations instead of quashing the impugned

noti�cation, this Court shifted the date of the noti�cation so that the

land owners are adequately compensated. Reference may be made to

(a) Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Rajkumar Johri and

others [1992 (1)SCC 328]

(b) Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of UP &

Ors. [1994 (1) SCC 92]

(c) Haji Saeed Khan & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.

[2001 (9) SCC 513]

In that direction the next step is what should be the crucial date

in the facts of the present case for determining the quantum of

compensation. We feel that the relevant date in the present case

ought to be the date when possession of the land was taken by the

respondents from the writ petitioners. This date admittedly is 19-

02-2003. We, therefore, direct that compensation payable to the

writ petitioners be determined as on 19-02-2003, the date on which

they were deprived of possession of their lands. We do not quash

the impugned noti�cation in order not to disturb what has already

taken place by way of use of the acquired land for construction of

the national highway. We direct that the compensation for the

acquired land be determined as on 19-02-2003 expeditiously and

within ten weeks from today and the amount of compensation so

determined, be paid to the writ petitioners after adjusting the

amount already paid by way of compensation within eight weeks

thereafter. The claim of interest on the amount of compensation so

determined is to be decided in accordance with law by the

appropriate authority. We express no opinion about other statutory

rights, if any, available to the parties in this behalf and the parties

will be free to exercise the same, if available. The compensation as

determined by us under this order along with other bene�ts, which

Vishal Parekar ...18

wp-4786-2018.doc

the respondents give to parties whose lands are acquired under the

Act should be given to the writ petitioners along with what has been

directed by us in this judgment.

20. A perusal of the above quoted portion of the said judgment of

the Supreme Court shows that when the brief description of the land

proposed to be acquired, is not properly stated in the notification

under section 3A of the Act, 1956, particularly when only a part of the

land out of a larger part of land is sought to be acquired, the

notification itself is liable to be quashed. Once this happens, the entire

acquisition proceedings, including the land acquisition award is liable

to be quashed. We find that the Supreme Court in the said case was

dealing with facts that were similar to the facts arising in the present

petition.

21. A perusal of the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956,

in the present case shows that in so far as the land belonging to the

petitioners is concerned the only description was that land from Gut

No. 897 (P) was being acquired to the extent of 0.88 R, with the land

being stated as “agricultural land- dry”. The petitioners have placed on

record 7/12 extract i.e. the revenue record to show that Gut No. 897

consisted of 8H and 35R land. The aforesaid description in the

notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, is found to be woefully

inadequate to demonstrate as to which portion admeasuring 0.88 R

Vishal Parekar ...19

wp-4786-2018.doc

from 8H and 35 R of Gut No. 897 was proposed to be acquired. Such

defective brief description clearly denied the petitioners a fair

opportunity to raise their objections and to place their case before the

authorities. This is exactly what the Supreme Court held in the case of

Barangore Jute Factory and Ors. (supra) as a defect going to the root of

the matter, necessitating quashing of the notification itself.

22. On the question of delay, in the said judgment in paragraph 9

quoted here-in-above, the Supreme Court found that delay in

challenging would not clothe the act of the authorities with legitimacy

if it suffers from a fundamental defect regarding the notification itself.

We find that the petitioners in the present case have placed on record

sufficient documents to show that, at the stage of acquisition before the

award was issued on 25

th

November, 2011 and even immediately

thereafter, they had been pursuing the authorities on the aforesaid

fundamental defect in identification of the exact portion admeasuring

0.88 R in Gut No. 897, that was made subject matter of the

acquisition. It is a matter of record that till the Writ Petition was filed,

the petitioners continued to be in possession. It was only during the

pendency of the petition that the respondent-authorities took

possession of the land and the Highway was eventually completed in

the year 2022. Therefore, the respondents cannot escape responding to

Vishal Parekar ...20

wp-4786-2018.doc

the issues raised by the petitioners in the petition by taking shelter of

the argument of delay and laches.

23. Apart from this, as noted here-in-above, we find that the

petitioners appear to have been discriminated against, as land owners

similarly situated like them in the adjoining Gut Nos. 896 and 908

were granted the relief of rectification of joint measurement and

consequential modification of area under acquisition, leading to grant

of compensation, under the Act, 2013. On this ground also, we find

that the petitioners have made out a case in their favour.

24. If the principle laid down in the judgment of Barangore Jute

Factory and Ors. (supra) is followed and applied to the facts of this

case, the notification itself would stand quashed leading to the entire

acquisition proceeding as also the award being set aside. But even the

Supreme Court in the said judgment did not proceed to quash the

notification, recognizing several difficulties and practical problems that

would arise. In that backdrop, the Supreme Court balanced the rights

of the petitioners therein by taking a different course of action. It was

held that the petitioners therein would be entitled to determination

and payment of compensation from a different date and in that context

the crucial date was identified as the date on which the petitioners

Vishal Parekar ...21

wp-4786-2018.doc

therein were actually dispossessed. On that basis, directions were issued

for determination of compensation.

25. If we were to follow the said course of action, the relevant date

in the facts of the present case would be 24

th

May, 2017 when the

petitioners were dispossessed during the pendency of this Writ

Petition. The respondents would have to calculate the quantum of

compensation under the Act, 2013, treating the relevant date as 24

th

May, 2017. Such directions could have been issued, but for the fact of

the learned counsel for the petitioners on specific instructions from the

petitioners and in line with their representation dated 8

th

September,

2020, submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if they are also

granted compensation @ Rs. 4,240/- per sq. mtr. as was granted to the

similarly situated land owners in adjoining Gut No. 896.

26. We are of the opinion that if such a direction is issued, it would

balance the interests of the rival parties, as the other option of quashing

the notification itself following the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of Barangore Jute Factory and Ors. (supra), would

lead to unnecessary problems and complications for all the stake

holders.

Vishal Parekar ...22

wp-4786-2018.doc

27. In view of the above, we partly allow the Writ Petition by

directing that the respondents shall pay compensation to the

petitioners @ Rs. 4,240/- per sq. mtr. for the extent of their land

acquired and utilized for construction of the aforesaid Highway.

28. The amount shall be calculated and paid to the petitioners

within a period of eight weeks from today.

29. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Vishal Parekar ...23