Bombay High Court
Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 July, 2013
Author: R.M.Borde
Bench: R. M. Borde, S.P. Deshmukh
{1}
wp825010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8250 OF 2010
1 Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde,
age: 38 years, Occ: service,
R/o Galli No.1, Serve No.68,
H.No.4-10-627, Astavinayak
Colony, Jaibhawani Nagar,
CIDCO, N-4, Aurangabad.
2 Gokul Mala Sonawane,
age: 45, Occ: service,
R/o Jijave Niwas, Priya
Apartment, Block No.4,
Shriram Nagar, N-2, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
3 Deorao Sheshrao Patange,
age: major, Occupation:
R/o Plot No.E-46/1,
Block No.16, MIDC,
Chikalthana, Aurangabad.
4 Ajay M. Mudliyar,
age: 36 years, Occ: Business,
A-47, Gurudattanagar,
Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad.
5 Sau. Usha Nivrutti Kakade,
age: 31 years, Occ: Household,
R/o C/o Kakade Nivrutti Bhaurao,
Plot No.41, Serve No.68,
Galli No.1, Astavinayak Colony,
Near Mohatadevi Mandir,
Jaibhavani Nagar, CIDCO,
Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{2}
wp825010.odt
6 Sau. Sangita Pralhad Aatole,
age: 30 years, Occ: Household,
R/o C/o Pralhad Devidas Aatole,
Serve No.68, Galli No.2,
Priya Provision Jaibhavani Nagar,
CIDCO, Aurangabad.
7 Ravindra Ramesh Wadgaonkar,
age: 28 years, Occ: service,
R/o RM-232-2, Jaibhavani Chowk,
Bajajnagar, Waluj, Aurangabad.
8 Sau. Nirmalabai Manohar Borse,
age: 28 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o Salampure Nagar, Wadgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
9 Manoj Mandaji Borse,
age: 35 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
10 Rajendra Janardhan Mathakari,
age: major, Occupation:
R/o Radhakrishna Complex,
Khandoba Mandir Road,
Satara, Aurangabad.
11 Sanjay Sayalu Shivraj,
age: 34 years, Occ: service,
R/o Kautik Vishwanath
Gatkal, Mratunjay Housing
Society, H.No.2, RX-5/14,
Bajajnagar, Aurangabad.
12 Mangesh Sudam Auti,
age: 28 years, Occ: service,
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{3}
wp825010.odt
R/o Snehankit Housing Society,
RX-2/5, Room No.7,
MIDC, Bajajnagar, Aurangabad.
13 Chandrakant Tulshiramji Bhagat,
age: 36 years, Occ: Business,
R/o D-13/02, CIDCO,
Waluj Mahanagar, Devgiri Nagar,
Behind Sara Group, Near Police
Chowki, Waluj, Aurangabad.
14 Chotulal Ananda Mali,
age: 35 years, Occupation: service,
R/o RH-51/1, Bajajnagar,
Aurangabad.
15 Prakash Sakharam Mali,
age: 33 years, Occupation: service,
R/o RH-51/1, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
16 Vinod Khandu Marathe,
age: 32 years, Occupation: service,
R/o C-141, Shri Datha Ind. Waluj,
MIDC, Aurangabad.
17 Anil Shankarrao Ghodekar,
age: 36 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Parvati Frabriketion Works,
Plot No.P-114, Near Jagrati Hanuman
Mandir, Bajajnagar, Aurangabad.
18 Parasram Yashwant Sarkate,
age: 55 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Chaudhari Colony,
Chikalthana, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{4}
wp825010.odt
19 Kailas Shrikrashnarao Nimbolkar,
age: 35 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Room No.378, Mahada Colony,
Behind A.S.Club, Aurangabad.
20 Vikas Pandurang Nalawade,
age: 24 years, Occupation: Education,
R/o N-11, E-9/4, Mayur Nagar,
HUDCO, Aurangabad.
21 Pundlik Laxman Sultane,
age: 35 years, Occupation: service,
R/o MIDC, Bajajnagar,
Aurangabad.
22 Jagannath Murlidhar Wadgaonkar,
R/o At Post Waluj, Tq. Gangapur,
District Aurangabad.
23 Kaushal Kishor Narayan,
age: 50 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Plot No.20, N-4, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
24 Sau.Chandakiran Kaushal Narayan,
age: 43 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o Plot No.20, N-4, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
25 Sainath Devrao Ghuge,
age: 38 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Plot No.RM-289,
Bajajnagar, Aurangabad.
26 Sau. Lata Vijay Chavan,
age: 32 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o C/o S.M.Joshi.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{5}
wp825010.odt
27 Bhagwan Ganpatrao Bhujbal,
age: 43 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Ayodhanagar, N-7, CIDCO,
Aurangabad.
28 Shivaji Eknath Kamble,
age: 35 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o N-7, Cidco, Aurangabad.
29 Ratnakar Padmakar Bhalerao,
age: 29 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Cidco Mahanagar, Room No.
B-44/5, Bajajnagar, MIDC Area,
Waluj, Aurangabad.
30 Sau. Rachana Suhas Bhujbal,
age: 42 years, Occupation: service,
R/o N-5, E/16/12,
Gulmohar Colony, Aurangabad.
31 Sau. Sushila Vilas Bhujbal,
age: 48 years, Occupation: service,
R/o N-5, E-16/0/02,
Gulmohar Colony,
Aurangabad.
32 Kautik Vishwanath Gatkal,
age: 38 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Mratunjay Housing Society,
H.No.2, RX-5/14, Bajajnagar,
Aurangabad.
33 Vinod Shivajirao Ambhure,
age: 25 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Nilkamal Housing Society,
H.No.10, RX-1/3, Bajajnagar,
Wadgaon (Ko.), Near More Chowk,
MIDC Area, Waluj, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{6}
wp825010.odt
34 Sanjay Shivram Engole,
age: 32 years, Occupation:
R/o Waladgaon, Pandharpur,
District Aurangabad.
35 Sau. Janka Ganesh Ingale,
age: 49 years, Occupation: Household,
Plot No.15, Galli No.1,
Prakashnagar (East), Mukundwadi,
N-2, Cidco, Aurangabad.
36 Sau.Kesarbai Kondiram Shisode,
age: 44 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o Prakashnagar (West), Galli No.2,
House No.45, Mukundwadi Parisar,
Aurangabad.
37 Walmik Vitthal Patil,
age: 33 years, Occupation: service,
R/o C/o Ramdas Thorat,
N-4, C-1, CIDCO,
Behind MIT School,
Aurangabad.
38 Shinde Prakash Ramrao,
age: 37, Occupation: service,
R/o Pangra Shinde, Tq. Vasmat,
District Hingoli.
39 Patil Ashok Ravshab,
age: 38, Occupation: Business,
R/o Rajura (bu.), Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded.
40 Nekhumb Kailash Bhaskar,
age: 37, Occupation: service,
R/o Sayi Apartment, Mayur Park,
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{7}
wp825010.odt
D-4, Plot No.13, Jadhav Wadi,
Aurangabad.
41 Asaram Maruti Gere,
age: 38, Occupation: service,
R/o RM-154, Shindband Colony,
Bajaj Nagar, Waluj, Aurangabad.
42 Bhavaskar Purushottam Harishandra,
age: 37, Occupation: service,
R/o Cidco, Waluj, Plot No.58,
Aurangabad.
43 Prashant Prakashrao Danke,
age: 29 years, Occupation: service,
R/o H.No.557, Avishkar Colony,
CIDCO, N-6, Aurangabad.
44 Dipak Bhaskar Mahale,
age: 27 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o H.No.166, Avishkar Colony,
CIDCO, N-6, Aurangabad.
45 Suhas Chandrakant Devde,
age: 40 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Mutha Complex, Ulkanagari,
Aurangabad.
46 Pankaj Laxman Khambat,
age: 31 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Snehanagar, At Post Kannad,
Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.
47 Ganesh Trimbak Kale,
age: 27 years, Occupation: service,
Dhanashri Tuking System Pvt.Ltd.,
MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{8}
wp825010.odt
48 Sahebrao Kishanrao Jadhav,
age: 33 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o C/o Khemka Broch and
Spline Gages, H-5/12,
MIDC, Chikalthana,
Aurangabad.
49 Sou. Simran R. Ubreyane,
age: 35 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o Plot No.38, Vasundari Colony,
CIDCO, N-7, Aurangabad.
50 Jaganath Ramchandra Jadhav,
age: 56 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Vasmat Road, Parbhani. Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Industries,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through the
Chief Executive Officer,
4, 4(A), 12th floor,
World Trade Centre Complex, 1,
Cuffe Parade, Coloba,
Mumbai-400 005.
Telephone No.022-22151451/52.
3 Sub Divisional Officer @
Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue),
Aurangabad.
4 Rajendra Jawaharlal Darde,
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{9}
wp825010.odt
age: 60 years, Occupation: Business,
presently officiating as the Minister,
Department of Industries,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
5 Waman G. Kadam,
age: 45 years, Occupation: service,
presently officiating as
the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
@ Land Acquisition Officer,
Aurangabad. Respondents
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8152 OF 2010
1 Ashok Panditrao Jayakar,
age: 29 years, Occupation: service,
R/o M-123, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2 Shinde Vishal Shivajirao,
age: 26 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Pangra-Shinde, Tq. Vasmat,
District Hingoli.
3 Devidas Narayan More,
age: major, Occupation:
R/o Vittal Nagar, CIDCO,
N-2, Aurangabad.
4 Raju Masalmani Mudliyar,
age: 44 years, Occupation: service,
R/o A-47, Gurudatta Nagar,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.
5 Gopal Jyotiram Kadam,,
age: major, Occupation: service,
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{10}
wp825010.odt
R/o Service Industries,
Plot No.81, MIDC, Chikalthana,
Aurangabad.
6 Sau. Vina Raju Mudliyar,
age: 40 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o A-47, Gurudattnagar,
Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad.
7 Choudhari Namdeo Bhagwan,
age: 40 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o C/69/6, Cidco-11, Shivaji Nagar,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.
8 Sau. Mangal Vishnu Pathade,
age: 49 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o Prakash Nagar, House No.45,
Gali No.2, Mukundwadi Parisar,
Aurangabad.
9 Balkrishne Ramrao Hiwarde,
age: 46 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Plot No.114, Galli No.4,
Prakash Nagar, Mukundwadi,
Aurangabad.
10 Sukhdev Pundlik Sonwane,
age: 28 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Savitribai Phule Nagar,
Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
11 Dashrath Jagannath Saudagar,
age: 31 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Salampura, Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{11}
wp825010.odt
12 Shaikh Sabir Shaikh Ibrahim,
age: 49 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Naregaon, Maniknagar,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
13 Kalimkhan Hasankhan Pathan,
age: 27 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Plot No.7, Asephiya Colony,
Aurangabad.
14 Vijay Vishwanath Bagul,
age: 41 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
15 Sudhakar Pandurang Dhanraj,
age: 28 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Savitribai Phule Nagar,
Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
16 Sadashiv Kishan Mankari,
age: 31 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o C/o Laxman Soma Kharate,
E/A-3, Kasliwal Gadiya Vihar Road,
Shahnurwadi, Aurangabad.
17 Tanaji Ramchandra Narwade,
age: 31 years, Occupation: service,
R/o At Jogeshwari, Post Waluj,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
18 Kailas Namdev Jadhav,
age: 37 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
19 Ravindr Dagdu Aadhe,
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{12}
wp825010.odt
age: 41 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Kalika Steel Centre,
Ganesh Chowk, At Post Waluj,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
20 Gautam Baburao Gaikwad,
age: 24 years, occupation: service,
R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
21 Dilip Laxman More,
age: 23 years, Occupation: Education,
R/o Mumbai.
22 Sanjivani Prakash Holkar,
age: 36 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o New Akankasha Housing Society,
RM-69, Bajajnagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
23 Bechanram Janki Giri,
age: 42 years, Occupation: service,
R/o N-7, F-51/7, Ayodhyanagar,
CIDCO, Aurangabad.
24 Dattatraya Digambar Potdar,
age: 44 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Plot No.D-4, Jaibhawani Nagar,
Aurangabad.
25 Sau.Suwarna Dattatraya Potdar,
age: 38 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o Plot No.D-4, Jaibhawani Nagar,
Aurangabad.
26 Arjun Sampat Sabhadinde,
age: 47 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Mumbai.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{13}
wp825010.odt
27 Dnyaneshwar Rustrum Rasal,
age: 28 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Naregaon,
W/P/43, Anand Industries, MIDC,
Chikalthana, Aurangabad.
28 Godavari Apartment, Nandigram
Colony, Garkheda Parisar,
in front of Gajanan Mandir,
Aurangabad.
29 Kailash Nanasaheb Wagh,
age: major, Occupation:
R/o Shivaji Colony,
Near Stadium Kannad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
30 Prushottam Harichandra Bavaskar,
age: 36 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Plot No.58, Waluj Mahanagar,
CIDCO Growth Centre,
Aurangabad.
31 Dattatraya Vitthalrao Waghchore,
age: 25 years, Occupation: Farmer,
R/o Main Road, Ranjangaon
Shenpunji, Mahavir Medical,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
32 Gourishankarayya Siddayya Math,
age: 0 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Shahar Vradavan Housing
Society, House No.104, CIDCO,
Waluj, Aurangabad.
33 Dropadabai Kisan Kale,
age: 47 years, Occupation: Household,
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{14}
wp825010.odt
R/o C/o Eknath Kisan Kale,
Chatrapati Nagar, Wadgaon Road,
Behind Maroti Mandir,
Wadgaon (Ko.),
District Aurangabad.
34 Rajendra Eknath Shinde,
age: 34 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Ayodhyanagar, Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
35 Sanjay Ravan Shinde,
age: 36 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Ayodhyanagar, Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
36 Munwar Rafik Mansuri,
age: 31 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Sanjay Nagar, Galli No.116,
Baijipura, Aurangabad.
37 Sanjivan Eknath Shinde,
age: 29 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Ayodhyanagar, Wadgaon (Ko.),
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
38 Shaikh Rauf Shaikh Rahim,
age: 40 years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o Waladgaon, Pandharpur,
District Aurangabad.
39 Govind Dhondiba Hotkar,
age: 26 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Gitabai Housing Society,
RH-5, Bajajnagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
40 Anantrao Rohidas Wakale,
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{15}
wp825010.odt
age: 30 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o Swapan Nagar, RX 3/8,
Bajajnagar, Aurangabad.
41 Gajanan Sakharam Dhuldhule,
age: 37 years, Occupation: Vima
Agent, R/o Ganeshnagar,
Pandharpur.
42 Kamalabi Vishnupant Dhaneshwar,
age: 66 years, Occupation: Household,
"Shree", Plot No.21,
Shivdatta Housing Society,
CIDCO, N-8, Aurangabad.
43 Vivek Vishnupant Dhaneshwar,
age; 38 years, Occupation: service,
"Shree" Plot No.21,
Shivdatta Housing Society,
CIDCO, N-8, Aurangabad.
44 Anil Punjaji Salve,
age: 31 years, Occupation: service,
R/o Wadgaon, Bajaj Nagar,
Aurangabad.
45 Angad Baburao Ghuge,
age: 36 years, Occupation: Agriculture,
R/o Bhwaninagar, Mondha,
Parali Waijanath, District Beed.
46 Madhav Laxman Kulkarni,
age: 35 years, Occupation: private
service, R/o B-17, New Vishal
Nagar, Garkheda,
Aurangabad. Petitioners
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{16}
wp825010.odt
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Industries,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2 Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation, through the
Chief Executive Officer,
4, 4(A), 12th floor,
World Trade Centre Complex, 1,
Cuffe Parade, Coloba,
Mumbai-400 005.
Telephone No.022-22151451/52.
3 Sub Divisional Officer @
Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue),
Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr. Milind Patil, advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 &
3.
Mr. P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Shri S.S.Dande, advocate
(W.P.No.8152/2010) and Shri S.B.Bhosale, advocate (in W.P.No.
8250/2010) for Respondent No.2-MIDC.
Respondents No.4 & 5 served.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
rd
Reserved on : 03 May, 2013.
rd
Pronounced on : 03 July, 2013.
JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
1 The petitioners, who are holders of small plots out of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {17} wp825010.odt land situate at village Ladgaon, are questioning proceedings of acquisition of lands at the instance of MIDC (Additional Shendra Industrial Area) undertaken by Respondent No.3 - Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad. The petitioners also pray for issuance of writ of quo warranto to Respondent No.3 calling upon him to explain as to in what capacity of law, he has proceeded in respect of acquisition of lands situate at village Ladgaon, Taluka and District Aurangabad.
2Petitioners are admittedly purchasers of small pieces of plots situate at village Ladgaon on different dates between the period 2004 to 2009. The lands in village Shendra, Taluka and District Aurangabad, were notified under Section 1(3) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as "Act of 1961"), as "Industrial Area" for establishment of Shendra Urban Industrial Zone on 06.01.1996. According to petitioners, the Sub Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer was delegated with the powers under Sections 32, 32(2), 36 and 38 of the Act of 1961. Petitioners contend that the delegation of powers is restricted to the land covered by notification issued by Government on 06.01.1996 and it does not extend to the lands purchased by petitioners.
3 It is further stated that Notification under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961 was issued on 15.04.1998, declaring intention to ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {18} wp825010.odt acquire the land situate at village Ladgaon including the plots purchased by petitioners. The vendors of petitioners were issued notices under Section 32(2) of the Act of 1961 on 07.11.2009.
According to petitioners, they are not in receipt of the notices issued by the Respondent-authorities, however, they, on their own, approached Respondent No.3 and called for certain information and documents by presenting applications on 07.12.2009.
4 It has further been stated that notice under Section 32(2) of the Act of 1961 was published in Government Gazette on 25.02.2010. The initial applications tendered by petitioners were not attended, however, the matter was prescribed for hearing on objection by publishing a notice on 06.04.2010. Petitioners were also served with notices of hearing. The advocates for the petitioners were also served with the notice of hearing as regards acquisition proceedings on 10.04.2010, informing that hearing of objections is prescribed on 12.04.2010. According to petitioners, there were numerous objections received, however, Respondent-
authorities, without considering objections in its proper perspective, proceeded to issue notification under Section 32(1) of the Act of 1961. Petitioners contend that notification under Section 32(1) issued by Respondents on 26.05.2010 has not been published in the Official Gazette. Petitioners contend that Respondent No.3 has no authority in law to proceed with the acquisition proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::{19} wp825010.odt 5 Apart from legal challenges in respect of acquisition proceedings, petitioners contend that acquisition of an area for Additional Industrial Estate is not at all necessary since hundreds of hectares of land, belonging to MIDC, is still unutilised. It is also contended that there is no infrastructure developed for establishment of MIDC. In the absence of development of infrastructure and providing for basic amenities for the Industrial area, like power and water resources, the establishment of Industrial estate and acquisition of property for the said purpose, amounts to abuse of authority vested in the MIDC and State Government.
6 The contentions raised by petitioners have been controverted by Respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer by presenting an affidavit-in-reply. It is stated in the affidavit by Respondent No.3, that the State Government has issued a notification, as contemplated under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961 declaring the area, in question, as industrial area on 15.04.1998 and 06.01.1996. Both the notifications are published in Government Gazette. It is stated that upon notifying these lands under Section 3(1) , in view of provisions of Section 31 of the Act, the provisions of Chapter VI would apply so far as acquisition and disposal of land is concerned. The powers are vested with the State Government, as contemplated under Section 32 of the Act ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {20} wp825010.odt and the Government may acquire the land for the purposes of development of industrial area or for any other purpose in furtherance of object of the Act. It is also contended that notifications under Section 31(1) and (2) of the Act of 1961 have been published on 25.02.2010 and 03.06.2010, respectively. The contention that Respondent No.3 has no authority in law to take up land acquisition proceedings does not hold good in view of the provisions of Act of 1961 and Rules framed thereunder.
7It is further stated that after completing legal formalities, award has been declared and amount of compensation has also been paid. The total land under acquisition is 246.38 hectares comprising of 79 gut numbers. So far as 61 gut numbers are concerned, process of acquisition is complete by declaring awards. It is also stated that out of remaining 15 gut numbers, which are divided into plots, in case of 14 gut numbers, award is passed. It is also stated that out of 14 awards, in 9 cases compensation is paid and in remaining matters, notices for payment have been issued. It is stated that acquisition proceedings are almost finalised and major portion of land has been taken in possession and also handed over to MIDC.
8 An additional affidavit has been presented by Respondent No.3 wherein it is contended that Rules framed under Act of 1961 empower the Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Deputy ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {21} wp825010.odt Collectors and Sub Divisional Officers to proceed with the acquisition proceedings within their respective jurisdiction. It is also stated in the affidavit that Section 32 of the Act of 1961 empowers the State Government to acquire the land and the procedure, as contemplated under Act of 1961 for acquisition of land, has been followed properly and after acquisition of lands, possession of the said lands has already been handed over to MIDC.
9An affidavit-in-reply has also been presented by Respondents No.2 and 4 controverting the contentions raised by petitioners in the petition. The allegations of mala fide, raised in the petition, have also been refuted by the concerned Respondents.
10 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties.
11 Petitioners have presented notes of arguments wherein following grounds of challenge have been raised:
I) Whether the impugned acquisition process is vitiated as instituted by a person having no authority in Law ?
II) Whether an authority even while exercising powers u/s 42 of the MID Act r.w. rule 28 of rules framed under the said Act, can form opinion as to necessity of acquisition as contemplated u/s 32(2) of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {22} wp825010.odt the MID Act and take decision of existence of public purpose as contemplated u/s 32(1) of the MID Act ?
If no, A) Whether initiation of the acquisition proceedings in absence of any opinion formed by the State Government confirming necessity for acquisition as mandatorily required u/s 32(1) is legally permissible ?
ig B) Whether the impugned acquisition can be treated as concluded in absence of the decision of the State Government as mandatorily required u/s 32(2) of the MID Act ?
III) Whether the impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated for arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction thereby denying right of meaningful hearing as contemplated under the scheme of the MID Act ?
IV) Whether the impugned acquisition is unconstitutional for want of rational nexus with the object to be achieved more so when the un-rebutted and admitted facts on record confirm the facts that, A) The basic natural resources required for development of an industrial area are not available nor ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {23} wp825010.odt can be made available ?
B) Un-utilised developed Industrial area of more than the area of the lands to be acquired is either rendered idle or is being converted to other user as residential and/or commercial to benefit the builders ?
V) Whether the impugned acquisition is vitiated by mala fide motive more so when the un-utilised developed Industrial area of more than the area of the lands to be acquired is either rendered idle or is being converted to other user as residential and/or commercial to benefit the builders ?
Petitioners have reiterated their contentions raised in the petition.
12 It has been contended on behalf of Respondent No.2- MIDC that all the petitioners are subsequent purchasers i.e. purchasers of plots after declaration of notification dated 15.04.1998 under Section 1(3) read with Section 30 of the Act of 1961. Such notification is in the nature of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is contended that notified area is already declared and transactions of sale post-notification, concerning the land situate in the notified area, are illegal and subsequent purchasers do not acquire any valid title. Such purchasers do not have entitlement to challenge acquisition proceedings. It is contended that notices of acquisition have been ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {24} wp825010.odt served on the original owners. Since petitioners are purchasers of plots post-notification, they do not have entitlement to object to the acquisition proceedings. Even in spite of these facts, petitioners were heard in the matter. It is contended that an area to the extent of 246.38 hectares of village Ladgaon is under acquisition.
Out of which, holding of petitioners, taken together, is about 9787.62 square meters i.e. total area admeasuring 1.42 hectares.
It is contended that huge area of land has been acquired for planned development of industrial area. Petitioners' land is negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired.
Petitioners, who are persons interested, are only entitled to receive compensation and acquisition proceedings, at their instance, cannot be disturbed. It is also contended that in most of the cases, predecessors-in-title of petitioners have received compensation. It is stated that consent award has been passed in respect of 79 gut numbers and owners have executed 'kararpatra' (agreement) and accepted amount of compensation.
13 So far as the objection in respect of issuance of writ of quo warranto is concerned, it is contended that Section 42 permits delegation of powers and functions of the State Government under Chapter VI of the Act to any of its officers by Rules made in that behalf. Section 63 is a rule making power which deals with delegation of powers under Chapter VI. It is contended that under Rule 28, powers vested in the State under Section 32 are delegated ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {25} wp825010.odt to Assistant and Deputy Collectors. Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code defines Sub Divisional Officer means an Assistant or Deputy Collector, who is placed in-charge of one or more sub divisions in the district. Since Respondent No.3 is Assistant/Deputy Collector, being Sub Divisional Officer and answers the authority designated under Rule 28, to whom power of the State Government is delegated, the objection raised by petitioners does not merit consideration.
It is contended that even assuming without admitting correctness of stand of the petitioners that it was outside the competence of Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad to undertake proceedings of acquisition, still in the fact situation, acquisition proceedings are not invalidated. The de facto doctrine is doctrine of general applicability and may be invoked to validate acts of de facto public officers. (AIR 1976 AP 193).
So far as allegations in respect of mala fide are concerned, it is contended that no such allegations are made in the written objections dated 15.04.2010. Even otherwise, allegations against the Minister, Department of Industries, are quite bald and vague and in the absence of specific details, those allegations need not be taken into consideration.
14 It would be appropriate to refer to provisions of Section ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 ::: {26} wp825010.odt 1(3) , which provides that:
1(3) This Act, except Chapter VI, shall come into force at once; Chapter VI shall take effect in such area, from such date as the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in that behalf.
In the instant matter, notification has been published under Section 1(3) of the Act notifying additional industrial area on
15.04.1998, which includes the land situate at village Ladgaon, including plots owned by petitioners. Section 31 of the Act provides that, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such areas from such dates as have been notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 1. It is, thus, clear that the provisions of Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 are made applicable to the lands covered by notifications issued under Section 1(3) of the Act on 15.04.1998 including the lands which are subject matter of these petitions. Sections 31 & 32 of the Act of 1961 read thus:
31 The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such areas from such dates as have been notified by the State Government under sub section (3) of section 1.
32 Compulsory acquisition :
1) If at any time in the opinion of the
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{27}
wp825010.odt
State Government any land is required for the purpose of development by the corporation, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this act, the State Government may acquire such land by publishing in the official gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required, and stating therein that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section.
2) Before publishing a notice under sub section (1) the State Government shall by another notice call upon the owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion of the State Government may be interested therein, to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired [The State Government shall also cause public notice to be given in the manner laid down in section 53 and in the Official Gazette] :
[ Provided that, if the land proposed to be acquired falls within a scheduled Area then the State Government shall before such acquisition consult :
(i) the Gram "Sabha and the Panchayat concerned if the land is falling within the area of one Panchayat;
(ii) the concerned Gram Sabhas and the Panchayat Samiti if the land falling within the area of more than one Panchayats in the Block concerned;::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:54 :::
{28} wp825010.odt
(iii) the concerned Gram Sabhas and the Zilla Parishad if the land is falling within the area of more than one Block in the district concerned;
such consultation shall be carried out in the manner as may be laid down by the State Government by issuing a general or special order in this behalf:
Provided that the decision taken by the majority of the Gram Sabhas concerned by passing a resolution in the above matters shall be binding on the concerned Panchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad as the case may be.
Explanation : For the purposes of these provisos :
(i) the expressions "Gram Sabha" or "Panchayat" and "Scheduled Areas" shall have meanings, respectively assigned to them in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958;
(ii) the expressions "Panchayat Samiti"
and "Zilla Parished" shall have the meaning, respectively, assigned to them in the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.]
3. After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {29} wp825010.odt deems fit.
4. When a notice under sub section (1) is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances :
[ Provided that, if, before actual possession of such land is taken by or on behalf of the State Government, it appears for the State Government that the land is no more required for the purposes of this Act, the State Government may, by like notice, withdraw the land from acquisition and on the publication of such notice in the Official Gazette, the land shall revest with retrospective effect in the person in whom it was vesting immediately before the publication of the notice under sub section (1) subject to such encumbrances, if any, as may be subsisting at that time. The owner and other persons interested shall be entitled to compensation for the damage, if any, suffered by them in consequence of the acquisition proceedings as determined in accordance with the provisions of section
33.]
5) Where any land is vested in the State Government under sub section (4) the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorized by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 :::
{30}
wp825010.odt
6) if any person refuses or fails to
comply with an order made under sub-
section (5), the State Government may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.
[7) where the land has been acquired for the corporation or any local authority, the State Government shall, after it has taken possession thereof, by notification published in the Official Gazette, transfer the land to the Corporation or that local authority, as the case may be, for the purpose for which it was acquired, and the provisions of section 43-1A shall apply to any land so transferred.] 15 That, so far as locus standi of petitioners to raise objection to the acquisition proceedings, is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that a notification, as contemplated by Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961, has been issued on 15.04.1998 whereby, by virtue of provisions of Section 31, provisions of Chapter VI of the Act are made applicable. A notification under Section 1(3) is comparable with notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Once a notified area is declared, post notification sales of the land, situate in the notified area, are illegal and such transfers shall not bind the State. The purchasers of the land post notification do not get entitlement to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 :::{31} wp825010.odt 16 Respondents have placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Ganpat Balaji Parate Vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1991 (2) MhLJ 1515. It is observed in paragraph 16 of the judgment, thus:
16 This takes us to the point relating to absence of personal hearing before issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 31. Examination of the provisions of the Act would reveal that though it is in many matters dissimilar to the LA Act, the dissimilarity is not complete and whole. Notification under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act is in the nature of notification under section 4 of the LA Act and at that stage hearing is neither necessary nor feasible. The decision at that stage essentially pertains to a broad policy matter based exclusively on an expert opinion. Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable and unfair in not granting hearing at that stage.
17 Reference can be made to a judgment in the matter of Star Wire (INDIA) LTD. V/s State of Haryana and others, reported in 1996 (11) SCC 698, wherein it has been held that encumbrances created by erstwhile owner, after publication of notification under Section 4(1), does not bind the State and that the subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge legality of the acquisition proceedings. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, after considering earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, it is observed ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {32} wp825010.odt thus:
4 In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the property covered by the notification under Section 4(1) after it was published and, therefore, its title is a void title. It has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings much less the award. The Division Bench of the High Court has exhaustively reviewed the case-
law to negate the claim of the petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.
18 For the aforesaid proposition, reliance also can be placed on the judgment in the matter of Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in JT (1995) 8 SC 208, Yadu Nandan Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan, Sneh Prabha Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1996) 1 SCC 334 and 1996 (7) SCC 426, respectively.
It has also been held in the judgment of U. P. Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) 3 SCC 124, that the purchaser of the property, after the notification under Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to challenge validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6. A similar proposition has been propounded by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mohmadbhai s/o Miyabhai & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2000 (1) MhLJ 729.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 :::{33} wp825010.odt 19 Thus, since petitioners are purchasers of small plots of land after publication of notification under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961, which is comparable to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, they do not have entitlement to challenge acquisition proceedings.
20 Petitioners have objected to the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they have not been issued notices as required by Section 32(2) of the Act. In this respect, it has to be taken note of that notice of acquisition is served on the original owner and petitioners are purchasers of small plots after publication of declaration under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961. Failure to serve such notices does not have an effect of invalidating acquisition proceedings. In this context, reliance can be placed on the judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra & another Vs. Umashankar Rajabhau & others, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 299 and in the matter of Nasik Municipal Corporation Vs. Harbanslal Laikwant Bajpal & others, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 199.
21 Petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Babu Ram & another Vs. State of Haryana & another, 2010(1) AIR (SCW) 257, wherein it has been held that, "A right under Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {34} wp825010.odt Constitution." In the reported matter, the authorities had taken recourse to Section 17(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and invoked urgency clause. The Supreme Court has observed that:
".... Great care had to be taken by the authorities before resorting to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and that they had to satisfy themselves that there was an urgency of such nature as indicated in Section 17(2) of the Act, which could brook no delay whatsoever."
In the reported matter, State of Haryana was directed to consider the objections presented under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act within specified period and thereafter to proceed with the matter.
22 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai, reported in 2005 (7) SCC 627. It is observed in paragraph 10 of the said judgment, thus:
10. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regard consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process must not commit any ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {35} wp825010.odt misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.
23 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad, reported in 1976 (3) SCC 719, wherein it has been observed that, " An opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory and does not rest on the demand for the same by the landowner."
For the similar proposition, reliance is placed on the judgments in the matter of Mandir Sita Ramji Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi & others, reported in 1975 (4) SCC 298; Narindrajit Singh and Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1973 (1) SCC 157.
24 As has been observed above, it is noticed that petitioners are purchasers of small pieces of plots out of the acquired land after issuance of notification under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961, which is comparable with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, to which reference has already been made, petitioners do not have entitlement to challenge acquisition proceedings. Apart from this, advocates for petitioners were given an opportunity to tender ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {36} wp825010.odt objections and those were in fact considered. It is also to be taken note of that the original land owners have been served with the notices under Section 32(2) of the Act and they were heard in the matter. The original land owners, after declaration of awards, have accepted amount of compensation. In the facts and circumstances, reliance placed on the judgments, cited supra, by the petitioners to contend that they have entitlement to raise objections and in the absence of consideration of their contentions, acquisition proceedings are vitiated, does not deserve consideration and objection raised by petitioners to the validity of acquisition proceedings deserve to be rejected.
25 The second issue raised by petitioners is in respect of competence of Respondent No.3 to conduct the land acquisition proceedings and declare award in the absence of issuance of authorisation by the State Government, in that behalf, by publishing notification in the official Gazette. It is contended that so far as earlier acquisition proceedings initiated in pursuance to notification dated 06.01.1996 in respect of Shendra Urban Industrial Development Zone is concerned, the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer was delegated with the powers under Sections 32, 33(2), 36 and 38 of the Act of 1961 by issuing notification on 07.01.1996 by the State Government. It is contended that authorisation to Sub Divisional Officer to conduct the land acquisition proceedings is referrable to the lands and the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {37} wp825010.odt villages mentioned in the notification issued by the Government on 06.01.1996. The said notification is not referrable to the impugned acquisition. So far as instant acquisition is concerned, a notification has been issued by the State on 15.04.1998 under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961. According to the petitioners, there is no authorisation in favour of the Sub Divisional Officer to conduct acquisition proceedings in respect of land covered by notification dated 15.04.1998 and as such, Respondent No.3 does not have entitlement to conduct acquisition proceedings and declare the award.
26 In order to appreciate the contention raised by petitioners, reference can be made to Section 42 of the Act of 1961, which provides that the State Government may, if it thinks fit, delegate any of its powers under this Chapter to any of its officers by rules made in this behalf. Section 63(2) (h) provides for framing of Rules under Section 42, the delegation of powers of Government under Chapter VI. In exercise of powers conferred under the Act, the State has framed rules and Rule 28 thereof reads thus:
28 Powers of State Government:
The power of the State Government under Section 32, sub-section (2) of Section 33 (to the extent of (Rs.37,500 per hectare) (but subject to the limit of (Rs.2,50,000) for each case of acquisition) for determination of compensation by mutual agreement), 36 and 38 are hereby ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {38} wp825010.odt delegated to the Collectors, Assistant and Deputy Collectors within their respective jurisdiction and any officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector, specially appointed by the State Government in that behalf).
The Rule prescribes that, powers of the State Government under Sections 32, 33(2), 36 and 38 are hereby delegated to the Collectors, Assistant and Deputy Collectors within their respective jurisdiction. In this context, reference can be made to the provisions of Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which provides the definition of Sub Divisional Officer means, an Assistant or Deputy Collector, who is placed in-
charge of one or more Sub Divisions of the district. Thus, Respondent No.3 is an Assistant/Deputy Collector, being the Sub Divisional Officer and answers the authority designated under rule 28, to whom power of State Government is delegated. Since rule 28 itself delegates powers of the State Government under Sections 32, 33(2), 36 and 38 to the Collectors, Assistant and Deputy Collectors and Sub Divisional Officer, being an Assistant or Deputy Collector by virtue of Section 2(34) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, he is authorised to conduct proceedings under Section 33(2) and other provisions of the Act of 1961. The objection raised by petitioners, in this respect, is devoid of substance, hence deserves to be rejected.
27 It is contended that Respondent No.3 has taken all the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {39} wp825010.odt steps relating to acquisition, such as, (a) inviting objections to the proposed acquisition i.e. issuance of notice under Section 32(2) dated 07.01.2009; (b) publication of notification in official Gazette dated 25.02.2010 inviting objections; (c) publication of notice under Section 32(2) in the Daily News paper "Sakal: dated 06.04.2010; (d) hearing of the objections of petitioners on 12th, 13th and 15th April, 2010. Petitioners appeared through their advocates and submitted objections in writing and ultimately, after following procedure, notification came to be issued on 24.05.2010 under Section 32(1) of the Act of 1961. Even otherwise, accepting contentions raised by petitioners without admitting same, it is contended by Respondents that by invocation of de facto doctrine, the acts of public officers are required to be construed as valid. It is contended that de facto doctrine is born out of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and endless mischief.
This doctrine was engrafted as a matter of policy and necessity to protect the interest of public. In this context, reliance can be placed on the judgment in the matter of Gokaraju Rangaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1981) 3 SCC 132. It is held in the said judgment that:
"A Judge, de facto, is one who is not a mere intruder or usurper but one who holds office, under colour of lawful authority, even though his appointment is defective and may later be found to be so. Whatever be the defect of his title to the office, judgments pronounced ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {40} wp825010.odt by him and acts done by him when he was clothed with the powers and functions of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy as judgments pronounced and acts done by a judge de jure. Such is the de facto doctrine, born of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and endless mischief.
In this context, reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Pushpadevi M. Jatia Vs. M.L.Wadhawan, Additional Secretary, Government of India & others, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 367 and in the matter of Yashwant Dagdu More Vs. Mayuresh Builders, Nashik & others, reported in 2009 (1) MhLJ 326.
28 It is contended that in all 79 gut numbers from village Ladgaon are notified, consent awards in respect of all 79 gut numbers are already passed and lands covered under the notification for acquisition are acquired. The land owners have executed agreement and have accepted amount of compensation.
Some of the petitioners i.e. petitioners no.3 and 10 also have consented for acquisition and have accepted the compensation without any demur. The lands covered under notification came to be vested in the Government. It is contended that an area to the extent of 246.38 hectares from village Ladgaon is under acquisition, out of which, holding of petitioners is about 9787.62 square meters {0.98 hectare} + {0.44} hectare, total area ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {41} wp825010.odt admeasuring 1.42 hectare [3 acres 32 gunthas]. The total land belonging of the petitioners, taken together, is a very small fraction out of total area of 246.38 hectares, which has been acquired by the State. The land belonging to the petitioners is a negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired and as such, persons interested like petitioners do have only entitlement to receive compensation; and acquisition proceedings, at their instance, cannot be disturbed. In this context, reliance can be placed on the judgment in the matter of May George Vs. Special Tahsildar & others, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 98. In paragraph no.8 of the judgment, it is observed thus:
8. Land measuring 30.80 acres stood notified and acquired. The land consisted of large survey numbers and belonged to a large number of persons. It is not the case of the appellant that the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 were not published or given publicity as mandatorily required under the law. Once award was made and possession had been taken, land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested even if some irregularity is found in the award. As huge area of land had been acquired for planned development of industrial town, the land of the appellant cannot be exempted on any ground whatsoever. More so, the appellant's land was of negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired and therefore, at the behest of only one person, the acquisition ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 ::: {42} wp825010.odt proceedings cannot be disturbed.
29 It is to be noted that a large tract of land covering various villages have been acquired for establishment of Shendra Industrial Area as well as Additional Industrial Area in two phases.
The Industrial Estate is a part of larger National Plan and establishment of Delhi-Mumbai Industrial corridor and the project has been financed by International Agencies. Admittedly, 246.38 hectares land has been acquired from village Ladgaon and the total land, which is divided into several plots, held by the petitioners comprises of 1.42 hectares, which is a negligible fraction out of the total area. The petitioners cannot be permitted to withhold the whole project covering several hundred acres of land. Any order of restraint, in respect of acquisition of land, does have huge financial implication and the National Plan of development of Industrial Estate, involving several hundred crores of rupees, would be withheld.
30 Apart from this, petitioners do not have legal entitlement to challenge the acquisition proceedings, since petitioners are purchasers of small pieces of plots out of notified area after the date of issuance of notification under Section 1(3) read with Section 31 of the Act of 1961, which is comparable with notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The objections raised by petitioners, in the instant petitions, are devoid of substance. Both the petitions lack merit.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 :::{43} wp825010.odt 31 Both the writ petitions stand dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.
32 Learned Counsel for petitioners prays for continuation of order of status quo since they are desirous of availing remedy of presenting petition to the Apex Court.
33Petitioners are purchasers of small plots out of total larger area admeasuring 246.38 hectares. The total land covered by plots purchased by petitioners is approximately 1.42 hectares.
The interim order of status quo shall be restricted to the extent of plots purchased by petitioners for a period of six weeks from today.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp825010
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:02:55 :::