The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 is not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 31-A of the Constitution of India. The delegation of powers under section 32 of the Act to the Collector is permissible under section 42 of the Act and Rule 28 of the Rules. The procedure of hearing objections by the LAO and the final decision by the State Government is not unfair. The absence of personal hearing before the issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act is not illegal.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1961 - SECTIONS 31, 32, 33, 38, 42, 63 - VALIDITY - DELEGATION OF POWERS - HEARING - NOTICES - SUITABILITY OF LAND - ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS - GREEN BELT - FLOOD-AFFECTED LAND - LANDLESSNESS - EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the acquisition of land for the establishment of an Industrial Estate under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The total area acquired was over 2,000 hectares covering several villages and involving as many as 800 land owners. The proposed Industrial Estate was reported to be the biggest ever in Asia.
Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the validity of the Act and the acquisition of land. It held that: * The Act was not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 31-A of the Constitution of India. * The delegation of powers under section 32 of the Act to the Collector was permissible under section 42 of the Act and Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Rules, 1962. * The procedure of hearing objections by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the final decision by the State Government was not unfair. * The absence of personal hearing before the issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act was not illegal. * The objections raised by the petitioners were too general in nature and did not call for detailed reasoning. * The State Government was not bound to accept the LAO's recommendation to exclude certain land from acquisition. * The creation of a green belt around the Industrial Estate was a valid consideration for acquiring the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 31-A of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the delegation of powers under section 32 of the Act to the Collector was permissible? 3. Whether the procedure of hearing objections by the LAO and the final decision by the State Government was unfair? 4. Whether the absence of personal hearing before the issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act was illegal? 5. Whether the objections raised by the petitioners were valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act was not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 31-A of the Constitution of India because: * The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. * The Act contains a provision for just compensation and having the Industrial Estate is certainly in public interest. * The proviso to Article 31-A does not make actual payment of compensation co-terminus with taking possession. 2. The delegation of powers under section 32 of the Act to the Collector was permissible under section 42 of the Act and Rule 28 of the Rules because: * Section 42 permits delegation of powers and functions of the State Government under Chapter VI of the Act to any Officer by rules made in this behalf. * Rule 28 delegates the power of the State under section 32 to certain officers. * The delegation is not a parting with powers by the State Government but rather a conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself. 3. The procedure of hearing objections by the LAO and the final decision by the State Government was not unfair because: * The function of deciding suitability of land for a public purpose like establishing an Industrial Estate is not strictly judicial. * Delegation of even a part of the power under section 32 is permissible under section 42 of the Act. * A procedure of hearing by one authority and the decision by the other is not unknown in the laws relating to acquisition. * The State Government considers the report of the LAO as well as the material placed on record and hence there is nothing unfair in the procedure. 4. The absence of personal hearing before the issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act was not illegal because: * Notification under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act is in the nature of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition 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. 5. The objections raised by the petitioners were too general in nature and did not call for detailed reasoning because: * Considerations like fertility of land, improvements made, have little relevance in acquisition for a project like this. * Environmental aspects have been taken into consideration, as is clear from the record. * Proposed Industrial Estate is 25 Kilometers away from the City. * Green belt by planting trees all around the area is being created.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed and the rules discharged.

JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.:---Amendments allowed.

By these seven writ petitions, is challenged the acquisition of land for the purposes of establishing an Industrial Estate about 25 Kilometers away from the City of Nagpur under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The total area acquired is over 2,000 hectares covering several villages and involving as many as 800 land owners. The proposed Industrial Estate is reported to be the biggest ever in Asia.

2. By notification under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act issued by the State Government on 17-10-1988, Chapter VI of the Act was applied to that area. By notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 dated 16-12-1988 objections to the proposed acquisition were invited by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners filed objections which along with the record and the remarks have been forwarded by the LAO to the Government. The State Government overruled those objections as in its view they were of extremely general nature and directed the LAO to proceed with the acquisition. Notification under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act was issued in the Government Gazette on 22nd February, 1989. On that basis, notice under sub-section (5) of section 32 was issued on 21-4-1990 informing the land owners that the land vested absolutely in the Government free from all incumbrances as per sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act. It is against the above basic background that the validity of the acquisition is to be Judged. Since there also exists certain distinguishing features in some cases, we will deal with them groupwise.

3. Writ Petitions Nos. 1608, 1609 and 1610 of 1990 can be taken together. They relate to S. No. 17 area 3.40 hectares, S. No. 70-A area 5.58 and section No. 70-B area 1.09 hectares, situate at Mouza Turakmari, Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur. On 16-1-1989, the land owners had filed the objections to the acquisition before the LAO. They were heard by the LAO on the next day. The land owners then filed Writ Petitions (W. Ps. Nos. 2050, 2054, 2053, 2055, 2056, 2057 of 1989 and 2058 of 1989) making a grievance about the hearing. The LAO showed his willingness to give fresh hearing, though according to him proper hearing was given. Those petitions were disposed of with the direction to grant hearing once again. The petitioners were heard again on 17-8-1989. The substance of the objections was that:

i) the lands are unsuitable being flood affected.

ii) they are fertile and

iii) some of the petitioners become landless as a result of acquisition.

In these petitions points raised are :

a) the land owners are entitled to hearing by the LAO as well as by the State Government.

b) even if only one hearing is contemplated, it has to be by the State Government.

4. Writ Petition No. 1859 of 1990 relates to field Survey Nos. 102 and 109 area 1 H 66 R and 1 H 12 R respectively of Mouza Rengepar. According to the petitioner, he purchased field Survey No. 102 from M/s. Husukle Brothers vide registered Sale-deeds dated 30th July, 1987 and 25th January, 1988. The land was converted into non-agriculture on 2-12-1988 and prior to 3-6-1989 plots were laid in the field. The field Survey No. 109 was purchased from one Ambadkar vide registered Sale-deeds dated 26-2-1988 and 24-11-1988. The land owner entered into an agreement of sale of a part of the property on 10-5-1989. He never received the notices regarding the acquisition but having learnt about the same from other sources, he filed objections on his own accord. He was heard by the LAO. The substance of the objections was that :--

i) Notices to all the Plot holders were necessary.

ii) The land was not suitable as it was in the vicinity of the Nagpur Air Port.

iii) There was no necessity for acquisition, since other Government land was available.

In this petition, the points raised are :--

a) Sections 32 and 33 of the Act are ultra vires of the Constitution, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31-A.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(Bom) 479

Cases Referred (2)