- (1.) These are nine appeals before us, after certification of fitness of the cases for appeals to this Court, directed against orders governed by the same judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Maharashtra disposing of Writ Petitions relating to four groups of lands, which were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act').
(2.) A notification dated 11th October, 1963, under Section 4 of the Act, was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette with regard to the first group. The public purpose recited in the notification was "development and utilisation of said land as a residential and industrial area." The notification goes on to state; "AND WHEREAS the Commissioner, Bombay Division, is of the opinion that the said lands were waste or arable lands and their acquisition is urgently necessary, he is further pleased to direct under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act, that the provisions of Sec. 5-A of the said Act shall not apply in respect of the said lands." Thereafter, a notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act on the 19th December, 1963, followed by notices under Section 9 (3) and (4) of the Act.
(3.) With regard to the second group of lands, identically similar notifications under Section 4 together with identically worded declaration-cum-direction, under Sec. 17 (4) of the Act were issued on 13th June, 1965. As proceedings with regard to land comprised in this group were not followed up by notification under Section 6 of the Act, it was conceded by Counsel, in the course of arguments on behalf of the State in the High Court, that the proceedings had become invalid. We are, therefore, not concerned with lands in this group in the appeals now before us. Nevertheless, it is not devoid of significance that the terms of the notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration-cum-directions under Section 17 (4) of the Act, in this group are also identical with those in the first two groups. This certainly suggests that directions under S. 17 (4) could have been mechanically issued in all the groups in identical terms without due application of mind to the factual requirements prescribed by law.;