Roshan Dalvi, J.

1. The petitioners are residents of Taluka Alibag, District Raigad and are stated to be carrying on cultivation of agricultural land in villages Dherand, Mohte, Shahapur and Dhakte Shahapur more specially villages Dherand and Shahapur in Raigad District. These lands have been acquired by the State under Sections 32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act) and under Sections 11, 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 (Rehab. Act) for a Power Project promoted and to be put up by respondent No. 7 and one Reliance Industries.

2. The petitioners claim that 906 landholders and 500 landless labourers and their families in the aforesaid villages have been affected by the said acquisition. The petitioners claim that they represent 70% of the affected persons.

3. The petitioners have challenged notifications dated 9/11/2006, 4/4/2008, 5/4/2008, 5/8/2008, 28/7/2009, 25/9/2009, 26/9/2009 and 18/12/2009 under Sections 32 and 33 of the MID Act and Sections 11 & 13 of the Maharashtra State Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act 1999 (Rehab Act).

4. Tata Power Company Ltd., respondent No.7 is to set up a 1600 MW Coastal Power Plant for which 1200 acres of land is sought to be acquired by the Government as it is a project to be undertaken for public purpose of augmenting the power supply for the city of Mumbai.

5. The respondent No.7 made its application in that behalf dated 18/4/2006. Respondent No.2 on behalf of the State initiated acquisition proceedings under MID Act. Respondent No.7 submitted a Technical Feasibility Report (TFR) in that behalf in April 2006. The report shows the power situation in Maharashtra at that time, the increased demand for the power required by the State, more specially for the city of Mumbai, the power deficit that prevailed at that time and the supply of electrical energy which was to be produced for meeting the increased demand, the planned generation capacity of the existing power situation in the State, the capability of respondent No.7 in meeting the challenge of producing and supplying electrical energy upon establishing the power plant, the feasibility of the project, the availability of land, the procurement of raw materials, environmental aspects and the schedule for the project. The TFR considers various alternative sites and the non-feasibility for their acquisition. The report shows the features of part of the land actually acquired also. That land is shown to be in village Mankule and Dherand. The land actually acquired is in villages Shahapur and Dherand.

6. The petitioners contend that the TFR does not show that the area to be acquired is rich agricultural land which, if required to be acquired, has to be first converted into industrial land which is not done. They also contend that the land sought to be acquired was in green zone being rich agricultural land which was to be converted to industrial use which was not done. They further contend that the land consists of mangroves which is also sought to be acquired for a power project which would destroy the mangroves. They contend that satellite mapping which was mandatorily required to be done upon demarcation of the area considering the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) Regulations was not done as per the guidelines of this Court in WP No. 3246 of 2006 passed on 6/10/2005. Consequently, the inquiry report on mangroves required to be submitted, after site inspection report and panchanama, was not submitted. The petitioners contend that the land acquired was far in excess of what could be required to be acquired for a 1600 MW power plant covering the aforesaid 2 entire villages of Dherand and Shahapur. The petitioners also contend that this land was not notified as forest land. The petitioners also contend that a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was not submitted in time within the prescribed time as agreed under MOU by respondent No.7.

7. It may be mentioned if t