- (1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.4.2001 in Review Application No. 71 of 2001 passed by the Bombay High Court and the judgment and order dated 22.3.2001 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 6063 of 1988 dated 22.3.2001 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the present appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) In the writ petition a challenge has been made by the appellant to the notification under Section 15(1) dated 29th May, 1982 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the "Resettlement Act") and also for quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by Respondent No. 4.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are as under: Respondent No. 6, through respondent No. 3, issued a notification on 2nd November, 1978 under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act declaring the villages comprised therein to be covered under the benefited zones of Warna Project in Kolhapur District from the said date. The said notification included the appellant s village, Shriti. Respondent No. 2 thereafter issued notification under Section 14(1) of the Resettlement Act on 24th December, 1981 provisionally declaring the area to be acquired under Section 16 for the said Warna Project. The Respondents also issued a notification under Section 15 of the Resettlement Act which was published in the government gazette on 29th May, 1982 finally declaring the areas covered by the benefited zone. Respondent No. 4, on 1st September, 1983, issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act intending to acquire the Petitioner s land bearing gat No. 677 part, admeasuring 1 hectare 62 ares for the purpose of resettlement of persons affected by the Warna Project. The appellant lodged his objections to the notices issued pursuant to the Resettlement Act and the Land Acquisition Act and pointed out inter alia that on account of a compromise recorded in the year 1979, arising out a suit for partition filed in 1967, the land had been partitioned amongst various members of the family and that the land holdings of the petitioner and his brothers had accordingly been reduced to less than 8 acres and the petitioner s land thus could be acquired in view of Section 16 of the Resettlement Act read along with the schedule appended thereto. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that as the compromise had been effected in the year 1979, i.e., after the date of notification dated 2.11.1978 issued under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act, the aforesaid compromise could not be taken into account as it was void ab initio and, accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. It is in this situation, the matter is before us.;