M.L. Pendse, J. - (1.) ON February 3, 1970 the Commissioner, Bombay Division, Bombay published notification in accordance with provisions of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on being satisfied that the lands specified in the schedule annexed to the notification are likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz. for the planned development and utilisation of the lands in the Trans Harbour, Panvel and Trans Thana Creek area for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. The lands referred to in the schedule cover 86 villages situated within the Districts of Thana and Kolaba. The schedule inter alia recites that all lands lying within the survey limits of the villages mentioned, excluding the lands occupied by Gaothan sites, lands already notified for acquisition, lands occupied by religious buildings, burial grounds etc. and lands belonging to the Central and State Governments and other statutory corporations are excluded from proposed acquisition. The schedule further recites that the lands within the original municipal limits of Panvel Municipality are excluded, but not the lands which are included in the extended municipal limits and which admeasures about 814 Hectares and 88.63 Ares. On March 20, 1971, the Government of Maharashtra on being satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that the area adjoining city of Bombay should be developed as a site for the new town, published notification designating the area as the site for the proposed new town. The notification includes the area covered by the 86 villages. By a subsequent notification dated August 16, 1973 nine more villages situated within Thana and Kolaba Districts were also included. On March 20,1971 the Government published notification constituting respondent No. 4 as a new town development authority for the purposes of acquiring, developing and disposing of lands in the area of the new town. Having regard to the complexity and magnitude of the work involved in the development of the area as the site for the new town, the time required for setting up new machinery for undertaking and completing such work of development and with a view to ensure that the work is undertaken and completed in the public interest with speed, the Government decided to carry out the work through agency of the corporation and that corporation created is known as City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. The Corporation is a Public Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is a fully owned company of the State Government.
(2.) SECTION 113A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, (1966 MRTP Act) confers power upon the State Government to acquire any land under the Land Acquisition Act within the area designated under the Act as the site of the new town, as well as any land adjacent to that area which is required for the purposes connected with the development of the new town. The power to acquire lands includes the acquisition which may have commenced before coming into force of the section. The lands are acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act and on such acquisition the lands vest in respondent No. 4 for the purpose of developing the area as the site for new town. In view of provisions of section 113A of the MRTP Act, the lands proposed to be acquired by publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on February 3, 1970 endured for the benefit of respondent No. 4. The petitioners are owners of land bearing Survey No. 109( I )(a) and (b) of village Panvel. Survey No. 109(l)(a) admeasures 1 Acre 29 Gunthas and 10 Annas, while Survey No. 109(l)(b) admeasures 7 Gunthas and 14 Annas. On the portion of these lands the petitioners have constructed a house, cattle shed, well and bathroom -cum -toilet. The area covered by the house property admeasures about 1760 sq. meters. In pursuance of the notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners were served with notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the petitioners filed their objections. The objections were duly considered and enquiry held under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter notification under section 6 of the Act was published on December 28, 1972, by the Commissioner, Bombay Division. The notification, inter alia, recites that the lands are needed for the planned development and utilisation in the Trans Harbour Panvel and Trans Thana Creek area for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. The notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was followed by declaration under section 7 and notices under section 9 were duly served upon the petitioners on April 6, 1973. The petitioners filed their replies on July 3 and July 19, 1973 principally claiming that their lands are not liable to be acquired because the acquisition would deprive them of the shelter. As several lands were proposed to be acquired for development of new town, respondent No. 4 had floated a scheme whereby the owners who would voluntarily surrender their lands were promised 80% compensation as an advance payment. Large number of owners opted for the scheme and voluntarily surrendered their lands and received advance compensation. The voluntary surrender of land was accepted in accordance with provisions of paragraphs 21 and 261 (a) of the Land Acquisition Manual. The petitioners offered to surrender the area of 1 Acre 20 Gunthas from Survey No. 109(1 Ha),and statement of petitioner No. 1 was accordingly recorded on February 20, 1974. The petitioners thereupon received 80% of the compensation as the advance amount. The petitioners gave an undertaking that they would not claim any right in the land surrendered. The possession of area of 1 Acre 20 Gunthas was handed over on February 27, 1974 and the Land Acquisition Officer, ultimately declared the award in respect of the area of 1 Acre 20 Gunthas on March 29, 1982.
(3.) ON April 5,1984, the petitioners filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of the remaining area proposed to be acquired under the notification published under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is the claim of the petitioners that Deputy Collector Niphadkar, who was the Land Acquisition Officer and Gokhale, an officer working with respondent No. 4, had approached the petitioners' family and had requested to surrender the land notified for acquisition. The petitioners claim that after discussion and negotiations the petitioners agreed to surrender 1 Acre 20 Gunthas on assurance that the remaining area, including the area on which the house stands, would be excluded or released from the acquisition. The petitioners claim that the negotiations were fruitful and the officers accepted the proposal and assured the petitioners that the remaining area would be excluded or withdrawn from the proposed acquisition. The petitioners claim that the assurance was not kept and after waiting for a considerable length of time the petitioners addressed letter dated September 30, 1974 and September 1, 1976 to respondent No. 4 seeking exclusion of the lands which were not surrendered. The petitioners claim that respondent No. 4 did not respond to the demand and ultimately letter dated September 15, 1976 was received from respondent No. 4 communicating that the lands cannot be released from acquisition. The petitioners claim that application was made to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on December 28, 1983 to release the lands and withdraw the acquisition in pursuance of the assurance given by the officers Niphadkar and Gokhale, but the Land Acquisition Officer declined to pay any heed to the request and thereupon the petitioners had no option but to file petition and seek writ of mandamus for a declaration that the land admeasuring 1760 sq. meters stands released from acquisition. The petitioners are also seeking a writ to direct respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to release and exclude the area of 1760 sq. meters from acquisition and prevent the respondents from taking possession thereof. The petitioners claim that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have acted in arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory manner and are guilty of legal mala fides in the manner in which the lands of the petitioners are threatened to be acquired. The petitioners also claim that apart from the fact that there was an agreement between the petitioners and the respondents to release the land in dispute, it is the policy of the respondents not to acquire houses situated within the municipal limits and also houses contiguous to the municipal limits, provided the houses were constructed prior to February 4,1970. The petitioners claim that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department had addressed a letter dated April 20, 1971 to the Collector, Thana and Kolaba in that respect and the respondents are bound to give effect to that policy decision and exclude the land on which the petitioners have erected house.;