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.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

PRELIMINARIES

2. Rule in each of these Petitions. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The learned Counsel for the parties’ state that substantially common issues of law and fact arise in all these Petitions. Accordingly, they submit that a common judgment and order could dispose of all these Petitions by treating Writ Petition No.1488 of 2016 as the lead Petition. This would be consistent with the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench made earlier in these matters.

4. The arguments concluded on 27 February 2025, and these matters were reserved for orders. From the pleadings, there was some ambiguity about whether any of the Petitioners in this batch had challenged the invocation of urgency provisions. So, the matters were posted for clarification on 21 March 2025. Upon the learned Counsel clarifying that there was no such challenge in this batch, the matters were again reserved for judgment and orders.

BASIC FACTS & CHALLENGES

5. In all these Petitions, the Petitioners challenge the land acquisition proceedings regarding their properties vide declaration dated 04 June 2012 and Awards dated 07 April 2015. In the alternative, the Petitioners seek a direction to the Respondents to grant them 20% of the developed lands in terms of the State Government Policy and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Land Acquisition Act). The properties which are the subject matter of the compulsory acquisition and in which the Petitioners claim interest are suitably described in the respective Petitions. Therefore, such a description is not repeated in this judgment and order.

6. The properties in which the Petitioners claim interest were compulsorily acquired for setting up a new township under the provisions of The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Old Land Acquisition Act) and the New Land Acquisition Act.

7. There is no dispute that the challenged land acquisition commenced under the Old Land Acquisition Act but continued and was ostensibly completed after the New Land Acquisition Act came into force on 1 January 2014. The relevant and crucial facts regarding which the Petitioners contest the challenged acquisition proceedings are briefly set out hereafter.

8. The State Government issued a Section 4 notification under the Old Land Acquisition on 12 May 2011 and published it in the two local newspapers on 27 May 2011 and 05 June 2011, about which there is no dispute. This notification was also published at the ‘gaav-chawadi’ on 12 August 2011, and there is some dispute about it. However, nothing much turns on this dispute.

9. Admittedly, no hearing under Section 5A of the Old Land Acquisition Act was granted to any of the Petitioners on the purported grounds the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Old Land Acquisition Act were invoked. The Counsel for the petitioners clarified that the Petitioners were not challenging such an invocation.

10. The State Government issued a Section 6 declaration on 12 June 2012. The same was published in the local newspapers on 16 June 2012 and 17 June 2012, respectively. There is serious controversy about the publication date of this declaration at the ‘gaav-chawadi’. The Petitioners contend that public notice of this declaration at the ‘gaav-chawadi’ was on 04 September 2012. The State Government, however, claims the date of such public notice/publication was 10 December 2012.

11. Admittedly, no Award was made based upon the Section 4 notification dated 12 May 2011 and Section 6 declaration dated 12 June 2012 until the New Land Acquisition Act came into force on 01 January 2014. There is a serious controversy about the precise award/awards date and whether the awards relied upon by the State Government are final o