Important Point - The petitioners in these two petitions will be at liberty to make representation to the authorities under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1894 for release of their lands acquired pursuant to the impugned notifications.

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. These two petitions are disposed of by common judgment as in these two petitions same notifications issued/published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the properties of the respective petitioners, are challenged.

3. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1894”) was issued by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 19th April, 2007 notifying that the land admeasuring 59.50 hectares out of the lands shown in Schedule to the notification was likely to be required for public purpose. Notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was sent to the petitioners in the two petitions (landowners) on 30th May, 2007. The notification stated that the lands were urgently required and therefore, the inquiry as per Section 5A of the Act of 1894 was dispensed with. On 22nd November, 2007 notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published in the official gazette. On 18th December, 2007 notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 was given to the petitioners in both these petitions. As per this notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 the land owners were required to attend the inquiry. These petitions came to be filed on 7th January, 2008. Initially by order passed on 25th September, 2008, the parties were directed to maintain statusquo, however, by order passed on 17th November, 2008 the order directing the parties to maintain statusquo was vacated. It is undisputed before us that the amount of compensation is deposited before the reference Court and possession of the lands in question is taken by the respondent No.1.

4. The petitioners have challenged the acquisition, substantially on the following grounds:-

i. The acquisition of lands in question, dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 is illegal.

ii. The urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 could not have been invoked as the facts on record show that there was no such urgency for acquisition of the lands in question which enabled the State Government to invoke the urgency clause.

iii. That the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and not by the State Government which is the proper and competent authority to issue notification.

iv. As per Section 126(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1866(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1966”) acquisition can be made by the appropriate authority either by agreement and paying the amount as per the agreement, or in lieu of such amount by granting Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights as laid down under Section 126(1)(b) of the Act of 1966, or by making an application to the State Government for acquiring land in question under the Act of 1894 and in the present case the acquisition of the lands in question is not by agreement and it is as per Section 126(1)(c) of the Act of 1966 and therefore, the acquisition should have been by the State Government and as the acquisition is by the Divisional Commissioner it is illegal.

v. That as per the development plan the lands in question were designated for the purpose other than the purpose for which they are acquired and as per Section 128 of the Act of 1966 such acquisition can be made only after the State Government is satisfied that the lands in question were needed for the purpose other than the purpose for which they were designated and in the present case the sanction given by the State Government does not show that it reached the satisfaction as required by Section 128 of the Act of 1966.

vi. The lands in question are acquired for rerehabilitation of the Project Affected Persons and therefore, the acquisition should have been made by following the procedure as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and as it is not done, the acquisition is bad in law.

vii. The land