P.D. Naik JUDGMENT
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of.
2. This judgment will dispose of both the Writ Petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 1074 of 2015.
3. Through this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners who are claiming to be the legal heirs of late Narayan Aditwar Patil who was the owner of the land bearing Gat No. 91/1 admeasuring about 3.25 Acres equivalent to 14670 sq. mtrs. situated at Talavali village, Taluka and District Thane within the municipal limits of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation are seeking declaration to the effect that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land, resulting in the award dated 31st August, 1984 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act of 2013").
4. In the Writ Petition through the Petitioners have raised a ground that the physical possession of the said land is still with them and on that ground in view of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, the acquisition proceeding deemed to have lapsed but during the course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners are not pressing this ground. In the circumstances, we are not dealing with the said ground.
5. The other ground of the Petitioners which has been pressed is that the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Respondent No. 3 had passed the award on 31st August, 1984 but the compensation amount determined in the award has not been paid either to the original owner or to them till date. In the circumstances the acquisition proceeding deserves to be declared to have deemed to be lapsed under Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
6. In support of his contention, that since the compensation amount as per the award has not been paid, the acquisition proceeding are deemed to have been lapsed, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on Section 24 of the Act of 2013 as also on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. H arakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others MANU/SC/0055/2014 : (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183.
7. The Respondents-State as also the Respondent-Municipal Corporation (for short "the Corporation") have filed their respective reply.
8. preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation that the Petitioners are not legal heirs of the original owner and therefore the Petition at their instance is not maintainable. Replying this learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners argued that in the affidavit filed by the Petitioners, they have made a categorical statement that they are legal heirs of the original land owner late Narayan Aditwar Patil. The Petitioners have also filed copy of the ration card showing their names with the original land lord Narayan Aditwar Patil and a certificate issued by the Talavali Village Gramastha Mandal stating that the Petitioners are the legal heirs of Narayan Aditwar Patil. Having considered the affidavit and the documents, we are of the view that preliminary objection raised at the instance of the Corporation is not tenable. Hence rejected.
........