CHANDRAKANT ADINATH UTTURE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 15-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 193 
CHANDRAKANT ADINATH UTTURE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 1346 of2016) 
FEBRUARY IS, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 
1986 - ss. 13, 14 - Rehabilitation of affected persons from the 
benefitted zone -. Declaration of areas in affected and benefitted C 
zone by State Government as also extent of land acquired in the 
benefitted zone as per the slab - Change in slab or area to be 
acquired, after the publication of the first notification - Requirement 
of issuing notice to those whose lands would be acquired on account 
' 
of the change in the slab - Held:'#'hen there is a change in the 
slab, reducing the area of exemption from acquisition in the benefitted 
D 
zone, the procedure uls. 13(2) is to be followed which requires giving 
of public notice inviting objections. 
Allowing the appeals, the Conrt 
HELD: 1.1 The whole purpose of notice under sub-Section 
(2) of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons 
Rehabilitation Act, 1986 is to invite objections or suggestions in 
respect of the lands falling under the affected or benefitted zone. 
By change of slab, there is change in. the area of the benefitted 
zone and that change can be brought out only on following the 
procedure nnder sob-Section (2) after considering the objections 
and suggestions. [Para l2) [200cF-G] 
1.2 Under sub-Section (4) of Section 14, the Government 
is permitted to acquire land even from any other villages or areas 
E 
F 
for the purpose of rehabilitating the affected persons from the 
·affected zone or for rehabilitating those under any project who 
G 
have remained to be rehabilitated. Once there is a change in the 
notification on the slab reducing the size of exempted holding, 
the people thus affected should get a chance to make their 
objections and suggestions, so that the Government may consider 
the report of the Collector on those objections and suggestions, 
193 
H 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
before issuing a revised notification u/s. 13(1) of the Act. [Para 
13] (200-G-H; 201-A] 
1.3 Passing of the award by itself does not mean that any 
illegality should not be addressed. In the instant case, the writ 
petitions were filed when the declaration under Section 6 of the 
B Act was published, and in any case, it is submitted by the appellants 
that they have not been dispossessed so far and no compensation 
also has been paid. Therefore, the High Court was not right in 
holding that the requirement of notice on objections and 
suggestions need only be in respect of the lands coming under 
c Section 13(1)(a) of the Act (the affected zones) and Section 
13(1)(b) of the Act (the benefitted zones). The High Court is right, 
however, in holding that no notice is required in respect of the 
lands belonging to the slab under Section 13(l)(c) of the Act, 
when it is issued for the first time. However, in case there is a 
change in the slab reducing the area of exemption from acquisition 
D 
in the benefitted zone, the procedure under Section 13 (2) of the 
Act is required to be followed. The appellants are permitted to 
prefer their objections or submit their suggestions on the change 
of slab from Slab III to Slab I before the Collector. [Paras 15 - 17) 
(201-F-H; 202-A-B) 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 346 
F 
of2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2010 in WP No. 1144 
of2002 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 
C.A. No. 1348 of2016 
& C.A. No. 1350 of2016 
WITH 
Harshvardhan Reddy, Senthil Jagadeesan, Aman Vachher, 
Ashutosh Qubey, Abhishek Chauhan, (For P.N. Puri), Advs. for the 
G 
Appellants. 
H 
Satyajit A. Desai, Akash Kakade, Nishant Ramakantrao 
Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J.: !. Leave granted. 
CHANDRAKANT ADINATH UTTURE v. STATE OF 
MAHARASHTRA [KURIAN, J,] 
2. The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 
• · 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is a piece of legislation 
· intended for rehabilitation of persons affected on implementation of certain 
projects in the State of Maharashtra "on the lands acquired from the 
zones benefitted by the projects. The Act is applicable to all irrigation 
projects of which the area of the affected zone exceeds 50 Hectares or 
the area of the benefitted zone exceeds 200 Hectares or where a gaothan 
. is af

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.