2013 Supreme(Bom) 1192

In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
R.M. BORDE & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department
Writ Petition Nos. 8250 of 2010 & 8152 of 2010
Decided on : 03-07-2013

Headnote:Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Sections 1(3) and 32(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4 - Acquisition of land. - Since Notification under Section 1(3) of Act, 1961 is comparable to Section 4 of Act, 1894 hence post notification sales of land is illegal. - It is contended that authorisation to Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct the land acquisition proceedings is referrable to the lands and the villages mentioned in the notification issued by the Government on 6.1.1996. The said notification is not referrable to the impugned acquisition. So far as instant acquisition is concerned, a notification has been issued by the State on 15.4.1998 under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961. According to the petitioners, there is no authorisation in favour of the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct acquisition proceedings in respect of land covered by notification dated 15.4.1998 and as such, respondent No. 3 does not have entitlement to conduct acquisition proceedings and declare the award.

       In order to appreciate the contention raised by petitioners, reference can be made to Section 42 of the Act of 1961, which provides that the State Government may, if it thinks fit, delegate any of its powers under this chapter to any of its officers by rules made in this behalf. Section 63(2)(h) provides for framing of Rules under Section 42, the delegation of powers of Government under Chapter VI.

       Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Sections 32(1), (2) and 33(2) - Acquisition of land. - Since acquisition initiated as part of larger national plan hence ’Decided on :-facto’ doctrine attracted. - The Industrial Estate is a part of larger National Plan and establishment of Delhi-Mumbai Industrial corridor and the project has been financed by International Agencies. Admittedly, 246.38 hectares land has been acquired from village Ladgaon and the total land, which is divided into several plots, held by the petitioners comprises of 1.42 hectares, which is a negligible fraction out of the total area. The petitioners cannot be permitted to withhold the whole project covering several hundred acres of land. Any order of restraint, in respect of acquisition of land, does have huge financial implication and the National Plan of development of Industrial Estate, involving several hundred crores of rupees, would be withheld.

       Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Sections 33(2), 42, 63(2)(h) - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Section 2(34) - Authority to conduct acquisition proceedings. - As per Section 2(34) of Code, SDO being Assistant/Deputy Collector is authorised to conduct land acquisition proceedings under Section 33(2) of Act, 1961. - It is noticed that petitioners are purchasers of small pieces of plots out of the acquired land after issuance of notification under Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961, which is comparable with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, to which reference has already been made, petitioners do not have entitlement to challenge acquisition proceedings. Apart from this, advocates for petitioners were given an opportunity to tender objections and those were in fact considered. It is also to be taken note of that the original land owners have been served with the notices under Section 32(2) of the Act and they were heard in the matter. The original land owners, after declaration of awards, have accepted amount of compensation. In the f acts and circumstances, reliance placed on the judgments, cited supra, by the petitioners to contend that they have entitlement to raise objections and in the absence of consideration of their contentions, acquisition proceedings are vitiated, does not deserve consideration and objection raised by petitioners to the validity of acquisition proceedings deserve to be rejected.

       Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Section 32(2) - Notice under. - Non-service of notice under Section 32(2) of Act upon post-notification purchasers of acquired land, not invalidates acquisition proceedings.