R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) IN all these petitions, the petitioners challenge the land acquisition proceedings on two grounds. Firstly that the petitioners were not given personal hearing in the course of the inquiry under section 5a of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, hereinafter called as "the said Act", in spite of the written objections by the petitioners consequent to the publication of notification and service of the copy of the notice under section 4 of the said Act, and secondly that considering the fact that the notification under section 11 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, hereinafter called as "the Resettlement act," was published much prior to the enforcement of Maharashtra Project affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, hereinafter called as "the rehabilitation Act, and the ceiling limit which was available under the Schedule a, Part II of the Resettlement Act was 8 acres and therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to acquire the land of the petitioners as the petitioners land was within the ceiling limit on deduction of the area of uncultivable land.

( 3 ) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the notification under section 11 of the Resettlement Act in relation to the village Katali was issued on 14th February, 1983. The Resettlement Act was repealed by the Rehabilitation act, which came into force from 23rd October, 1989. The notification under section 4 (1) of the said Act in relation to the various agricultural lands in the village Katali including the lands of the petitioners was issued on 31st October, 1994 and was published in the Government Gazette on 24th November, 1994 and in the local newspaper on 17th November, 1994 and was displayed at Chavadi in the village on 19th December, 1994. The personal notices were issued under the said section 4 (1) to the petitioners on 19th January, 1995. The petitioners filed their objections on 7th March, 1995. A declaration under section 6 of the said Act came to be issued on 15th December, 1995 and was published in the Government gazette on 16th December, 1995 in the local newspaper on 17th April, 1996 and displayed at Chavadi on 2nd May, 1996. The award under section 11 of the said act was declared on 18th May, 1997 and the individual notices under section 12 (2) thereof were issued on 29th September, 1997 which came to be received by the petitioners on 3rd October, 1997. The petitioners filed applications for certified copies of the award on 7th October, 1997 and the same were supplied to the petitioners on 15th October, 1997, thereafter the present petitions were filed.

( 4 ) WHILE assailing the impugned award and the land acquisition proceedings, the learned advocate for the petitioners placing reliance in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Khushalrao Tulshiramji Pandao and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. , reported in 2001 (4) Mh. L. J. 510 submitted that it was obligatory for the Collector/land Acquisition Officer to give opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as they had filed the objections to the proceedings consequent to the publication of the Notification under section 4 of the said Act before submitting the report about the inquiry under section 5a of the said Act and having not done so, the proceedings stand vitiated. In terms of the Resettlement Act, the slab limit prescribed under Schedule A Part ii was 8 acres and the notification under section 11 of the Resettlement Act was issued on 14th February, 1983 in relation to the village Katali. The land of the petitioners which is sought to be acquired is from the said village Katali. The acquisition is for the resettlement of Kumbhi Medium Project Affected Persons. Merely because the notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued in the year 1994