The court ruled that multiple extensions for making awards under the Fair Compensation Act can be granted, provided justifying circumstances are recorded, affirming the state's powers in land acquisition matters.

Judgment :-(per R.D.Dhanuka, J.)

. Rule. Mr.Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Counsel waives service for the respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr.Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General waives service for the respondent nos.2 and 6. Ms.Hajare, learned counsel waives service for the respondent no.7. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner seeks a declaration that the impugned Amendment viz. Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXXVII of 2018 is repugnant to and does not prevail over the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the said Fair Compensation Act”) and is ultra vires Article 14 , 254 (1) and 300A of the Constitution of India and is void ab initio.

3. The petitioner has filed interim application bearing No.838 of 2020 inter alia praying for an order and directions against the respondent to produce the letter dated 27^th March, 2020 and the entire material produced before the Hon’ble President of India for his assent under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Legislative Assembly Bill No.7 of 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Maharashtra Legislative Council.

4. The petitioner has filed interim application bearing lodging No.30586 of 2022 inter alia praying for amendment in the Writ Petition4 and for seeking injunction against the respondents from taking any steps or acting pursuant to or in furtherance of or implementing the purported award dated 15^th September, 2022.

5. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the first proviso to Section 25 of the said Fair Compensation Act on the ground that the same confers unguided, uncanalised and unfettered powers on the concerned authority, is vague, is contrary to and subverts the object and purpose of the said Act, is in violation of Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and must accordingly be struck down. Consequently, all actions taken in pursuance of or furtherance of the first proviso to Section 25 of the said Act must be declared illegal and void ab initio.

6. The following questions fell for consideration of this Court :-

(i) Whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging the acquisition of the writ land in view of the order passed by this Court on 4^th September 2019 in Writ Petition No.2131 of 2018 and has thus no locus to file this writ petition?

(ii) Whether the petitioner voluntarily offered the second alternate land for acquisition and such an offer having been accepted by the respondents, the petitioner could challenge the acquisition proceedings or could raise a dispute only regarding compensation ?

(iii) Whether the petitioner has discharged the burden to show that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principle and thus the5 presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the proviso to Section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act cannot be drawn?

(iv) Whether the personal hearing granted to the petitioner by one Deputy Collector and the impugned award passed by the another Deputy Collector would be in violation of the principles of the natural justice and the award can be set aside on that ground?

(v) Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed?

(vi) Whether the first proviso to Section 25 conferring the powers upon the appropriate Government to grant multiple extensions to make an award is uncanalised, unregulated, arbitrary, vague and is