Decided on March 06,2017

Nirmala Mahesh Bhole Appellant
State of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondents


Sangitrao S. Patil, J. - (1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, heard finally.
(2.) The petitioner has sought quashment of the acquisition proceedings bearing No. 3 of 2008 to the extent of 20 Ares of her land out of block no. 2284, situate at village Asoda, Taluka and District Jalgaon as well as the notice dated 23.05.2016, issued by respondent No. 3 - Special Land Acquisition officer for taking possession of the said land with the help of police.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( "the Act of 1894 ", for short), for acquisition of land of the petitioner was published in the gazette of the Government of Maharashtra on 18.07.2013. Prior to that, (i.e. on 05.07.2011), the petitioner had purchased the said land from one Pandurang Bhole for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,80,000/. The notice under Section 4 was not served on the petitioner. Respondent no.3-Special Land Acquisition officer issued notice under subsections (3) and (4) of Section 9 to Ramkrushna Bhole, but not served to the petitioner though her name was mutated in the record of rights of her land in the year 2011 itself. Respondent no.3 further issued notice under subsection (2) of Section 12 on 23.05.2015, whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that the amount of Rs.3,41,280/was fixed as a compensation for acquisition of her land and that she might accept the said amount under protest. The petitioner noticed that 200 pomegranate trees standing on her land were not considered by respondent no.3 while fixing the amount of compensation. She made representations to respondent no.3 and also to respondent no.4 - Executive Engineer, Waghur Irrigation Project, Division Jalgaon to make necessary enquiry and grant compensation in respect of her 200 pomegranate trees. However, no cognizance was taken of those representations. When the petitioner approached the office of respondent no.3 on 02.06.2016 for making enquiry, at that time respondent no.3 served upon her a final notice dated 23.05.2016, thereby threatening her that she should accept the amount of compensation or it would go back to the State Government and possession of her land would be taken with the assistance of the police force.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.