Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA, V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
Pimpri Chinchwad new Town Development Authority & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 9525 & 9528 of 2004 With Civil Application No. 2397 & 1611 of 2015 In Writ Petition No. 9525 of 2004 With Civil Application No. 2550 of 2014
Decided on : 21-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Shri Vijay D. Patil for the Petitioner
Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4
Shri A.V. Anturkar, Shri Siddhartha R. Ronghe for the Respondent No.5
Shri Madhav J. Jamdar for the Applicants
Shri Babu M.B. i/b Shri Ganesh Sitaram Bhat for the Applicants
The court emphasized the importance of recording reasons and providing an opportunity of being heard while deciding an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also highlighted the applicability of the principles of natural justice and the need to avoid legal misconceptions and breaches of natural justice in administrative decisions.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 21st September 2004 and rejected the applications made by the Fifth Respondent. The court held that the impugned orders were based on legal misconception and incorrect reading of the written submissions/reply of the Petitioner. The court also found a breach of the principles of natural justice as the rejoinder of the Fifth Respondent was considered without being served to the Petitioner. The court kept open the issue of the locus of the Fifth Respondent for filing fresh applications under Sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the issue of the applicability of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner challenged the order dated 21st September 2004 passed by the Second Respondent, directing the release of the land from acquisition under Sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Petitioner contended that the impugned order was based on various grounds, including a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were based on legal misconception and incorrect reading of the written submissions/reply of the Petitioner. The court also found a breach of the principles of natural justice as the rejoinder of the Fifth Respondent was considered without being served to the Petitioner. The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and rejected the applications made by the Fifth Respondent.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the impugned orders, breach of the principles of natural justice, and the applicability of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders were based on legal misconception and incorrect reading of the written submissions/reply of the Petitioner. The court also found a breach of the principles of natural justice as the rejoinder of the Fifth Respondent was considered without being served to the Petitioner. The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and rejected the applications made by the Fifth Respondent.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 21st September 2004 and rejected the applications made by the Fifth Respondent. The court kept open the issue of the locus of the Fifth Respondent for filing fresh applications under Sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the issue of the applicability of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Petitions.
A.S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL MATRIX
Writ Petition No.9525 of 2004
In Writ Petition No.9525 of 2004, the challenge is to the order dated 21st September 2004 passed by the Second Respondent who was the then Hon'ble Minister of State of the Revenue Department of the State Government. The subject matter of the said Writ Petition is the land bearing Survey No.17/6, 25 and 31 (Part) at Village Rahatani, Taluka Haveli, District Pune (for short “the said land”). By the impugned order passed in exercise of the powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Land Acquisition Act”), the Second Respondent directed release of the said land from the acquisition. The acquisition was for the benefit of the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner is a New Town Development Authority constituted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP Act”).
3. In the year 1962, the State Government decided to develop an industrial area in the limits of the erstwhile Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Council. For that purpose, large agricultural lands were acquired. After development of the industrial area, it was decided to develop Pimpri Chinchwad as a new township area. The State Government designated an area of approximately 4323 Hectares as the site of the proposed new town. As stated earlier, the Petitioner was appointed as the New Town Development Authority for the said area in exercise of the powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 113 of the MRTP Act by a Notification dated 14th March 1972. The Development Plan for the area for which the Petitioner was appointed as the New Town Development Authority was sanctioned on 8th September 1977. The said land subject matter of this Petition was notified for the purposes of acquisition under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 9th March 1970. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 23rd September 1986. A notice was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11th May 1999 for taking over possession of the said land. However, the possession could not be taken over due to the orders passed in a Civil Suit filed by the land owner. According to the case of the Petitioner, though the suit was dismissed in the year 1995, notwithstanding the requests made by the Petitioner, the Revenue Department did not take steps for placing the Petitioner in possession of the said land.
4. A letter dated 10th September 2004 issued by the Revenue Department of the State Government was received by the Petitioner by Fax calling upon the Petitioner to remain present on 13th September 2004 before the Second Respondent with regard to the Application filed by the Fifth Respondent under Sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Though a copy of the said Application was forwarded by Fax, it was not at all legible. The case made out in the Petition is that on 13th September 2004, a request was made by the representative of the Petitioner before the Second Respondent for grant of time to file a reply. It is stated that the Second Respondent did not grant time and heard the submissions of the Advocate for the Fifth Respondent. The Petitioner's representative was directed to submit a reply on 17th September 2004. Accordingly, a reply was filed on 16th September 2004. It is contended that though a rejoinder was filed to the said reply by the Fifth Respondent, a copy thereof was not supplied to the Petitioner. The case made out in the Petition is that a copy of the impugned order dated 21st September 2004 was forwarded to the Petitioner along with a letter dated 20th October 2004 which was received by the Petitioner on 26th October 2004. By the impugned order, the prayer made by the Fifth Respondent for deleting the said land from the acquisition was accepted. It is pointed out in the Petition that the programme for filing of nomination papers for the election of the Maharashtra Le
