JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J. :---This is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of a land of which acquisition has been given up afterwards by the Government. Following facts which are more or less matters of record need to be stated in order to appreciate the controversy.

2. Claimant R.J. Copper is resident of Pune. He is owner of land bearing CTS No. 382, Matunga Division, admeasuring 1258.33 sq.meters situated at Antop Hill Road, Wadala. Claimant being resident of Pune could not supervise the land personally and he had also come to know that it was being trespassed by anti-social elements. Therefore, he decided to dispose of the land and had approached certain agents. He had received some offers. However, on 1-7-1962 a notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act that the land was required for carrying out housing scheme of Maharashtra Housing Board and as such for public purpose and was decided to acquire. In view of this claimant could not carry on the negotiations for sale of the said land. Notification under section 6 was issued after six years on 27-1-1968 and after a month a notice under section 9 was served on the claimant on 29-2-1968. The claimant submitted his claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq.meter. Claimant was informed by the Land Acquisition Officer that in all about 39 plots were under acquisition and there were number of hutments occupying different plot and they being interested persons, the Housing Board was asked to prepare an inventory and it would require good deal of time for hearing number of such persons. After about three years, claimant were informed that the papers pertaining to acquisition was transferred to S.L.A.O.(1), Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra, and further correspondence be done with him. Thereafter claimant made several attempts for getting the acquisition proceedings expedited. Even then after lapse of about 12 years no further proceedings had commenced for acquisition and therefore, he wrote to the concerned Secretary to the Government and sent reminders. Although he was informed that the case was under consideration no further action appears to have been taken. Thereafter the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Vacant Land (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975 sent a notice on 19-11-1977 as to why the land should not be declared as vacant land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Vacant Land Act, 1965, calling upon him to reply within seven days. It was duly replied and thereafter a preliminary notice under the provisions of the aforesaid Act was issued by the Competent Authority, as to why the land should not be declared as slum area under section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. It was also replied and by the said reply it was brought to the notice of the Competent Authority concerned that the occupants are rank trespassers and bootleggers and claimants have no connection with them and he was not recovering any rent from them. He therefore asked the Competent Authority to withdraw the notice. However, the claimant was informed that notice under section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 has been issued on 31-1-1979 declaring the said land as slum area.

3. As no steps were taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to acquire the said property and no award was being passed, claimants filed petition bearing No. 677 of 1979 in the High Court on 21-3-1979 pointing out the aforesaid facts and claiming that the compensation payable to the claimants be decided forthwith. This petition was on board on 17-3-1981 when the respondents informed the Court that notification dated 9-3-1981 under section 48(2) of the Act was issued and the acquisition was withdrawn and therefore, the Court passed an order that the petition does not survive and dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document