Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
R.D. DHANUKA, SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
City & Industrial Development Corporation - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6917 of 2004
Decided On : 06-10-2017
Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (M.R.T.P. Act) and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are self-contained and also whether all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act can be read into the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act or not.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Special Planning Authority, initiated land acquisition proceedings under Section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act for the development of a notified area. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notices under Section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to all the interested persons to file their claim statement and dispute, if any, in respect of the area etc. The respondent No.7 filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. The said petition was dismissed by the High Court. The respondent No.7 filed a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed. The respondent No.7 then filed an application before the learned Minister for Revenue and Forests under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the said land was not needed by the petitioner and thus the acquisition of the said land should be dropped. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The learned Minister overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and directed to drop the acquisition proceeding in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 23rd June, 2004 passed by the learned Minister for Revenue and Forests, the petitioner filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying for a writ of certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the said impugned order dated 23rd June, 2004 passed by the learned Minister for Revenue and Forests.
Finding of the Court:
1. The provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and the Land Acquisition Act are self-contained and all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be read into the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act. 2. The acquisition of the land in question was initiated under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and was subject to the provisions of the said Act except to the extent of completing the process of determining compensation other than the compensation determinable by the designated arbitrator or tribunal. 3. The application made by respondent No.7 before respondent No.2 for seeking deletion of the land from acquisition itself was not maintainable. 4. The learned Minister for Revenue and Forest Department had acted without jurisdiction, without authority of law by entertaining the application purported to have been filed by the respondent No.7 under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. The impugned order passed by the learned Minister for Revenue & Forest Department is totally illegal and without authority of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and the Land Acquisition Act are self-contained and all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act can be read into the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act? 2. Whether the acquisition of the land in question was initiated under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act or the Land Acquisition Act? 3. Whether the application made by respondent No.7 before respondent No.2 for seeking deletion of the land from acquisition itself was maintainable? 4. Whether the learned Minister for Revenue and Forest Department had acted without jurisdiction, without authority of law by entertaining the application purported to have been filed by the respondent No.7 under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 5. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Minister for Revenue & Forest Department is totally illegal and without authority of law?
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and the Land Acquisition Act are self-contained and all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be read into the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act. The acquisition of the land in question was initiated under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and was subject to the provisions of the said Act except to the extent of completing the process of determining compensation other than the compensation determinable by the designated arbitrator or tribunal. The application made by respondent No.7 before respondent No.2 for seeking deletion of the land from acquisition itself was not maintainable. The learned Minister for Revenue and Forest Department had acted without jurisdiction, without authority of law by entertaining the application purported to have been filed by the respondent No.7 under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The impugned order passed by the learned Minister for Revenue & Forest Department is totally illegal and without authority of law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Minister for Revenue & Forest Department was quashed and set aside.
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2004 passed by the learned Minister for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, in File No. LAQ 3940/2001/1582/Case No.181/A1 and a notification dated 20th July, 2004 issued by the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad dropping the land acquisition proceedings to the extent of Gat No.124/1 of village Satara, Taluka and District Aurangabad. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:
2. The petitioner is appointed as New Town's Development Authority under section 113A of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act (for short, “the said M.R.T.P. Act”). Vide three notifications dated 30-10-1972, 3-2-1973 and 4-5-1973, the State Government appointed the petitioner as special planning authority for development of the notified area of new Aurangabad. The land bearing Gat No.124/1 of village Satara, which is subject matter of this petition, falls within the notified area under the said three notifications as per provision of section 40(1)(4) of the said M.R.T.P. Act for the development of Aurangabad notified area.
3. The petitioner carried out survey and prepared one existing land use map of the said notified area and published the draft proposal for the development of lands within its jurisdiction by publishing a public notice in Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 21st May, 1973 as per provision of section 40(3)(d) of the said M.R.T.P. Act. The said planing proposal was approved by the State Government. In the said notified area, some land were acquired for the purpose of the planned development and utilization for industrial, commercial and residential purpose.
4. The petitioner accordingly approached the Collector of Aurangabad vide letter dated 8th May, 1985 with a request to initiate land acquisition proceeding under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 read with section 126 of the said M.R.T.P. Act as early as possible and to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner. The Collector Aurangabad accordingly made appointment of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Unit, Aurangabad under the powers delegated to him to perform the functions of the Collector for all the proceedings to be taken in respect of the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also directed under section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to take orders for said acquisition of lands to be acquired.
5. The notification as per provision under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with section 126 (4) of the said M.R.T.P. Act was submitted to the Collector in order to get his approval for publication. The Collector Aurangabad issued notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 29 September 1986. The said notification was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on dated 1st January, 1987 in Aurangabad Division Supplement Part I on pages 5 and 6 and was also published in the local news papers i.e. Daily Aurangabad Times dated 1st January, 1987 and Daily Lok Vijay dated 3rd January, 1987. Various lands were sought to be acquired including the land bearing Gat No.124/1 which was measuring about 7.78 hectares.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter issued notices under section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to all the interested persons to file their claim statement and dispute, if any, in respect of the area etc. It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of the notice under section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 none of the owners disputed the area of their land as per the notification.
7. On 14th December, 1988 the Land Acquisition Officer, Special Unit, Aurangabad made an award in respect of various lands including the land bearing Gat No.124/1. In the said Award, the Land Acquisition Officer mentioned th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
