A P PURANIK Vs. SHOLPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHOLPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BY Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 5 properties bearing C. T. S. Nos. 8278/3, 8278/4, 8280/2, 8281/3 and 8281/4 situated at Sholapur, we notified for acquisition as being needed for public purposes viz. municipal offices and road widening. Individual notices were served about the above notification on one Nigude, one Shah and one Keshavlal, who were the owners of these properties. The notifications were published in accordance with the provisions in sub-section (1) of Section 4 in the Official Gazette in further pursuance of above provisions, the Collector put up public notices of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality of the properties. In fact one such public notice was put up by affixing the same on the compound wall of the properties bearing C. T. S. Nos. 8278/3 and 8278/4. The other three properties were in the same compound as the above C. T. survey numbers.
(2.) THE two of the above properties are mentioned in the petitioner as Nirgude Chawls and Shah Chawls. Six of the petitioners and monthly tenants in Nirgude Chawls and six other petitioners are monthly tenants in Shah Chawls. The notification dated 6th April 1968 under Section 6 of the Act was issued for acquisition of these properties for the purposes of Municipal Offices. This notification was published in the gazette dated 2nd May 1968. This notification stated that the Commissioner had considered the report of the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A in respect of the objections raised against the acquisition of these properties. Thereafter public notice was published under Section 9 in respect of the acquisition of the properties. In August 1968, the present petitioners were personally served with individual notices under sub-section (3) of Section 9 as occupiers of the property under acquisition. The notice under Section 9 was for the purpose of inviting the occupiers and the owners to file their claims for compensation and to mention in their claims the nature of their interests in the land and the amount and particulars of the claims for compensation. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petition in this Court on September 9, 1968 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for preventing acquisition of the properties and for quashing the acquisition proceedings.
(3.) IN support of the reliefs claimed. Mr. Lalit for the petitioners has contended that the authorities were bound to serve on the petitioners individual notices in respect of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners had not been afforded statutory opportunity to raise objections to the acquisition of the properties as was compulsory under Section 5-A of the Act. He developed this contention by pointing out various objections that the petitioners could have made against the acquisition of these properties. He pointed out that there was no dispute between the parties that the petitioners were entitled to interest in compensation to be awarded upon acquisition of these properties; and that parties having such interest were entitled to service of individual notices under Section 9 of the Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.