- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated October 14, 1994, made in W. P. No. 4023/89. Proceedings were initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short, the Act) for framing a scheme and for acquisition of the land in that behalf. The Final Development Plan was made on November 29, 1980. Notification under Section 126(4) of the Act was published on August 6, 1987. It was published in the local newspaper on July 18, 1987 and in the village Chavadi on September 25, 1987. It would appear that subsequently, after Section 4(1) notification and declaration under Section 6 of the (Land Acquisition Act 1/1894) were published, notice was issued under Section 9 of the said Act on September 16, 1989. Award came to be passed on September 22, 1989. The respondents filed writ petitions on September25, 1989. The award was published on September 27, 1989. It would appear that the Draft Plan was issued for reservation of certain lands for the public purpose and no objections were filed. In the meanwhile, by proceedings dated December 26, 1990, the same came to be deleted by publication of the notification on June 28, 1993 and Final Plan was published on September 30. 1993. On a representation made by the Corporation, the Government had issued a corrigendum on August 19, 1994 restoring the status quo ante with a slight modification. The High Court in the impugned order, while upholding the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, held that the award was not valid in law since there was a corrigendum issued by the Government. Consequently, the procedure provided under the Act was to be followed by operation of Section 37 of the Act, Thus these appeals by special leave.
(3.) Mr. U. R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, contends that once the reservation has been deleted, status quo ante stands restored. As a consequence, the entire process required under Section 28 and Section 31 read with Section 37 requires to be followed. In this case, that was not done. The High Court was right in quashing the award. We find no force in the contention.;