wp6889.15

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.6889 OF 2015

Sachin Omprakash Bajaj,

Age : 36 YEARS, Occu. Agriculturist,

R/o Zenda Chowk,

Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Secretary,

Industries and Labour Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2.

Sub-Divisional Officer and

Land Acquisition Officer,

Ambajogai, Dist. Beed

3.

Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation, Aurangabad

Through its Divisional Officer

4.

Sub-Divisional Officer,

Majalgaon

..RESPONDENTS

Mr A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr S.R. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 & 4;

Mr S.S. Deve, Advocate for respondent no.3

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

AND

S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 24^th August, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1.

Leave to add Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon as respondent no.4.

Addition be carried out forthwith. Issue notice to respondent no.4. The

learned A.G.P. waives service and causes an appearance on behalf of

said respondent.

wp6889.15

(2)

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

3.

By this petition, the petitioner has putforth prayer clauses (B), (D)

and (E) as under:-

“(B)

By appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated

29.12.2012 passed by respondent no.2 in File

no.2010/LNQ/MIDC/CR/WS7540 under section 33 (2) and 36

(1) (Exhibit E) be quashed and set aside to the extent of land

bearing Survey no.53, to the extent of 53 R situated at village

Dhangarwadi, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed

(D)

By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent

authorities be directed to initiate the proceedings for

acquisition of land, in accordance with provisions of section 33

(3) and 33 (4) of the MID Act, 1961 and pass appropriate

award by following due process of law.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(E)

By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents

be directed to delete the land of the petitioner from notified

MIDC area, Dhangarwadi, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.”

(There is no prayer clause (C)

4.

We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned

Advocate for the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent

nos.1, 2 and 4 and the learned Advocate on behalf of respondent no.3. It

wp6889.15

(3)

has been brought to our notice that in practically identical set of facts, this

Court has delivered a judgment on 24^th December, 2017 in Writ Petition

No.285 of 2012 filed by Shri Vitthaldas Tribhuvandas Bagadia and anr.

vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

5.

The sequence of events in relation to the land at issue are as

under:-

a)

In July, 2010, the petitioner purchased the said land from the

original owner.

b)

On 4^th November, 2010, the notification under Section 32 (1) of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short “MID

Act”) was published.

c)

By virtue of Section 32 (4), the land is deemed to be vested in the

Government free from all encumbrances from the date of the

publication of the notice under Section 32 (1)

d)

In December, 2010, the petitioner moved an application for seeking

the NA 44 order which was granted.

e)

On 29^th December, 2012, the award was delivered by respondent

no.2 and compensation amount was deposited in the Treasury.

wp6889.15

(4)

f)

The respondent authorities are unable to locate any agreement

signed with the petitioner with regard to quantification of the

compensation amount.

g)

The contention of the petitioner is that the land could not have been

taken over by the authorities in the absence of an agreement.

h)

A notice under Section 32 (5) of the MID Act, dated 29^th December,

2012 was served upon the petitioner