LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-206

BALSHIRAM KHANDU PAWALE Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Decided On August 11, 2005
BALSHIRAM KHANDU PAWALE Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Petition, petitioners are challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by issuing Notification under section 4 dated 24/09/1997 and declaration dated

(2.) /06/1998 issued under sections 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award dated 31/03/2000 which was passed pursuant to the said declaration dated 02/06/1998. Petitioners are also challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Pune dated 14/08/2002 on the representation made by the petitioners in respect of the land which was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Petitioners are challenging the aforesaid Notification and the decision passed by the respondent No.3, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts are as under:-

(3.) AFTER the award was passed, petitioners made representation before the Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Pune in which it was contended that the various circulars which were issued by the Government from time to time were not taken into consideration before passing the award and it was, therefore, contended that the acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed. It was contended that the total holding of the petitioners was less than 8 acres if the share of other co-parceners was taken into consideration. It was contended that the father of the petitioners expired on 08/01/1992 and after his death the name of the petitioners along with two other heirs came to be recorded in the revenue record of the agricultural land. It was further contended that the petitioners were living separately since 1980 by way of family arrangement. It was, therefore, submitted that if the shares of the other co-parceners were taken into consideration, the total holding of each of the petitioners would be less than 8 acres and, consequently, the benefit of the circulars which were issued by the Government from time to time ought to have been given in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.3, however, by a reasoned order rejected the representation which was made by the petitioners by his order dated 14/08/2002.