The acquisition of land for the resettlement of project-affected persons can be made under the Land Acquisition Act, and the Resettlement Act does not prohibit the State Government from having recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - RESETTLEMENT OF PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS - MAHARASHTRA RESETTLEMENT OF PROJECT DISPLACED PERSONS ACT, 1976 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR RESETTLEMENT OF PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS - WHETHER CAN BE MADE UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT - HELD, YES.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose of resettling project-affected persons. The petitioners challenged the acquisition on two grounds: (1) that the acquisition could not be made under the Land Acquisition Act but only under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (the Resettlement Act); and (2) that each of the petitioners was the owner of only one-fourth of the land being acquired, and therefore, no land was liable to be acquired from their holdings under a Government Resolution dated 31 October, 1969.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the acquisition of land for the resettlement of project-affected persons could be made under the Land Acquisition Act, and that the Resettlement Act did not prohibit the State Government from having recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court also held that the petitioners' contention that each of them was the owner of only one-fourth of the land being acquired was not well-founded, as there was only one single account of all the petitioners together, and that the mentioning of the share of each of the petitioners had been made pursuant to an enquiry held into the heirship of the original account holder.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land for the resettlement of project-affected persons could be made under the Land Acquisition Act or only under the Resettlement Act? 2. Whether the petitioners' contention that each of them was the owner of only one-fourth of the land being acquired was well-founded?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of the Resettlement Act became operative only when a declaration was made under section 11(1) of the Act that the provisions of the said Act shall be applicable to a project, and that such a declaration would follow only after the formation of the opinion by the State Government that it was necessary or expedient in the public interest to make such a declaration. 2. The Court held that the petitioners' contention that each of them was the owner of only one-fourth of the land being acquired was not well-founded, as there was only one single account of all the petitioners together, and that the mentioning of the share of each of the petitioners had been made pursuant to an enquiry held into the heirship of the original account holder.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition of land for the resettlement of project-affected persons could be made under the Land Acquisition Act, and that the petitioners' contention that each of them was the owner of only one-fourth of the land being acquired was not well-founded.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 2nd of August, 1978 under which 81 Acres of Gat No. 866 belonging to the petitioners and situated at village Udatare in Wai Taluka of Satara District were intended to be acquired for a public purpose. The stated public purpose is the resettlement of project affected persons due to the Krishna Dhom Project. The total holdings of the petitioners as mentioned by them is 10 acres and 14 ½ gunthas equivalent to 4 hectares and 14 acres. Eightyone acres are being acquired from one of the lands belonging to the petitioners, probably by applying what is now known as the slab system under a Government Resolution dated 31st October, 1969, to which we will make a reference shortly.

2. The acquisition is challenged on two grounds. In the first place, it has been mentioned that the acquisition which is being made from the petitioners' land under the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose of resettlement of the project affected persons is illegal inasmuch as acquisition for the said public purpose could not be made under the Land Acquisition Act. The basis of this challenge is a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in (Pandurang Akaji Dawale v. State of Maharashtra)1, Special Civil Application No. 915 of 1977 (along with others) decided by Masodkar , J. (with Ginwala J.) on 17th/18th October, 1977. According to the petitioners, this judgment of the Division Bench clearly states that if the State Government wants to acquire land for the public purpose of resettlement of project-affected persons, that acquisition can be made only under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as "the Resettlement Act", and not under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners together hold 4 Hectares and 14 acres of land, but each of the petitioners is the owner of only one forth of the said lands. It has been mentioned in the petition that the total holding of the joint family was originally 10 acres and 14¼ gunthas, but subsequently each of the four petitioners was allotted only 2 acres and 24 gunthas, as a result of which each of the petitioners is cultivating his land separately and independently. According to the petitioners as per the Government Resolution dated 31st October, 1969, it is only from a single account of 10 Acres or more that land can be acquired for the purpose of resettlement of project displaced persons. Since in the present case each of the petitioners is in fact and in law the owner of only one forth of 10 acres and 14¼ gunthas, it should be held that the holding of each of the petitioners is only 2 acres and 24 gunthas. If this is so, under the Government Resolution itself, which occupies the field, no land is liable to be acquired from the holding of any of the petitioners.

4. Some back ground information, both factual and legal, is necessary to give in the instant case. It is well-known that several projects are being undertaken all over the country and especially in Maharashtra. Many of these projects are the construction of dams for the purpose of irrigation and for the purpose of generation of electricity. When such projects are undertaken they involve the displacement of persons from the lands covered by those projects. These are displaced persons. The question of resettlement of these persons had engaged the attention of the Government from time to time prior to the coming into force of the Resettlement Act, the Government had given executive instructions from time to time and had also issued a resolution dated 31 October, 1969, which is probably the resolution made applicable to the acquisition i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document