PADMAJA ARUN PANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with consent of the parties.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioners challenge the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Central Act' for short) for the purpose of laying of bye -pass at Buldhana which is said to be the part of Malkapur -Solapur State Highway.

(3.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner nos.1 to 4 (the name of the petitioner no.1 has, since been deleted) are the owners of Gat No. 170, while the petitioner nos.5 to 7 are the owners of Gat No.169 of mouza Sagwan, Tahsil and District -Buldhana. A proposal for acquisition of portion of the said fields of the petitioners along with others was received in the office of the respondent no.5 -Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana on or about 8.4.2008. According to the petitioners, they had not received any notices for joint measurement. The petitioners also contended that the proposed acquisition was not necessary for laying the bye -pass, as the said purpose was already taken care of by portion of the road from Buldana to Nandrakoli. The petitioners contended that thus the proposed acquisition was not in public interest. It appears that a Notification under Section 4 of the Central Act was published on 28.8.2012. The petitioners sent their objections, although specifically Section 5A of the Central Act was not mentioned therein. That objection was jointly sent on 24.9.2012. It appears that a Resolution was also adopted by the concerned Gram Panchayat on 13.9.2012 raising objection to the acquisition, on the ground that several agriculturists would be affected thereby. The petitioners also sent their individual objections. The petitioner nos.1 to 4 had received a notice dated 28.3.2013 calling upon them to remain present in the matter of hearing on their objections under section 5A of the Central Act. However, no such notice was received by the petitioner nos.5 to 7. According to the petitioners, without holding any effective inquiry under Section 5A of the Central Act, a proposal for issuance of Notification under Section 6 of the Central Act, was sent by the respondent no.4 -Special Land Acquisition Officer, followed by a proposal for issuance of notices, under Section 9 of the Central Act. The petitioners filed this petition, initially challenging the acquisition on the ground that there was no opportunity of hearing given, resulting into non -compliance of Section 5A of the Central Act. The petition came to be amended by addition of paras 3A and 3B on the ground that inasmuch as the acquisition was for the purposes of a State Highway, the acquisition could not be undertaken under the provisions of the Central Act. In short, it is contended that the acquisition ought to have been under the provisions of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 ('State Act' for short).