Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.S. Sonakitendra Jain, JJ
Sarala Sopan Thorat - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 3475 OF 2017
Decided On : 28-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 300 A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 3(cc), 4, 6, and 11-A - Challenge to land acquisition proceedings on grounds of violation of public purpose and procedural lapses - The court held that the acquisition was valid as it was partly funded by the State, thus satisfying the public purpose requirement. (Paras 51, 62, 66)
(B) The court found that the Section 6 declaration was not lapsed despite being issued beyond the one-year period due to ongoing stay orders. (Paras 31, 66)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land for a sugar factory, arguing that the third Respondent was not a State-controlled corporation and that the acquisition was invalid. (Paras 3, 7, 51)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the acquisition was valid as it was partly funded by the State, and the Section 6 declaration was conclusive evidence of public purpose. (Paras 66)
Issues: Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose and whether the Section 6 declaration lapsed. (Paras 66)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the funding of the acquisition by the State was sufficient to establish public purpose, rendering other arguments regarding shareholding irrelevant. (Paras 62, 66)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Sonak J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs in this Petition:-
“[A] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside the provision of Constitution (44th Amendment Act) of the year 1978 as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
[B] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting the Central Act No. 68 of 1984, namely Land Acquisition [Amendment] Act 1984, as violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.
[C] That this Honourable Court be pleased alliteratively to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, alternatively holding the provision of Land Acquisition [Amendment] Act 1984 are inconsistent with the provision of Article 19 [1] [f] read with Article 31, of the Constitution of India, in case if the Honourable Court comes to the conclusion that, the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act 1978 is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
[D] That in case if the Honourable Court comes to the conclusion that the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act 1978, is not violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, then the Honourable Court be pleased to hold that the provision of Land Acquisition [Amendment] Act 1984, are not “Authority of Law” within the meaning of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, and the aforesaid provisions of the Act are violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, 1950.
[E] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside the Notification issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, under Land Acquisition Act in respect of the suit property, as the fraud on the provisions of Section 3[cc] of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition [Amendment] Act No.68 of 1984.
[E1] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing and setting aside the impugned declaration made by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division in respect of the suit property as a fraud on the provisions of Section 3 (cc) and Section 6(1) of the Act.
[F] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, holding that the Respondent Sugar Factory is not a Corporation owned and controlled by the “State” within the meaning of Section 3[cc] of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and therefore the provisions of Part II of the Land Acquisition Act will not apply in respect of the proposed acquisition.”
4. Mr Gatne submitted that Section 4 Notification was issued on 22 May 2013, and its last date of publication was 31 May 2013. However, the declaration under Section 6 was made only on 22 July 2014. Relying on Clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 6 of the Old Act, Mr Gatne submitted that since the Section 6 declaration was made after the expiry of one year from the last date of publication of Section 4 Notification, the same was void.
5. Mr Gatne submitted that, even otherwise, in terms of the Government Resolu
The court affirmed that land acquisition can be valid if partly funded by the State, satisfying public purpose requirements, regardless of the controlling shareholding of the acquiring corporation.
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, t....
Land acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements are not met, particularly regarding notifications and timelines, as established by the Land Acquisition Act and the 2013 Act.
The court ruled that while the State failed to comply with statutory requirements for land acquisition, binding precedent limits the ability to declare the acquisition void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
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
