ARNOLD RODRICKS LAWRENCE ZUREN JOHN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRAS IN BOTH THE PETITIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise substantially the same questions of law and were heard together and may conveniently be disposed of together. It would be convenient to give a few facts in Writ Petition No. 66 of 1965.

(2.) The petitioners who are citizens of India are owners of some land in Greater Bombay in the South Salsetta Taluka in the Bombay Suburban District. There are four respondents to the petition; the first is the State of Maharashtra, the second the Commissioner, Bombay Division, the third the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the fourth the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, established by notification under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The predecessor in office of the second respondent, by notification dated March 30, 1962, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, purporting to act under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - notified that the land belonging to the petitioners was likely to be needed "for a public purpose, viz., for development and utilisation of the said lands as an industrial and residential area". By the said notification the third respondent was appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under S. 5-A of the Act in respect of the said lands. Pursuant to the said notification the third respondent issued a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act calling upon the petitioners to file their objections to the acquisition of the said lands under the act. The petitioners filed their statement of objection and took the objection that the purpose for which the lands were required. viz., development and utilisation of the said lands as an industrial and residential area, was vague and was not genuinely or properly a public purpose. The petitioners further pointed out that the said lands and the contiguous land of the petitioners formed a compact area of land situate on the Central Salsette Railway Track and the said area could by reason of its location be easily and without in the least degree adversely affecting the scheme of the acquisition be excluded therefrom and should be released from acquisition accordingly The first petitioner Arnold Rodricks, pointed out in his letter dated October 5, 1963, addressed to the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, that the Government had already acquired about 3 acres of his land for University Campus in addition to his other lands acquired earlier by the State Government and that the said lands and the land bearing Survey No. 330 Hissa No. 2 (part) and Survey No. 313 Hissa No. 14 were the only lands left with the petitioners and that the petitioners required the same for their own residential home. On October 7, 1963, the second respondent, being satisfied after considering the report of the Collector under sub-s (2) of S. 5-A of the Act that the said lands were needed to be acquired at the public expense for a public purpose declared under the provisions of S. 6 of the Act that the lands were required for the public purpose of "development and utilisation of the said lands as industrial and residential area." After the issue of the notification under S. 6, usual notices under S. 9, Cls. (3) and (4) were issued by third respondent and pursuant to these notices the petitioners filed their statement of claim for compensation with the third respondent under protest and without prejudice to their rights and contentions. In the petition the notifications dated March 30, 1962 and October 7, 1963, and the acquisition proceedings and the enquiries purported to be held under S. 5-A and S. 11 of the Act are challenged as being illegal, invalid and inoperative in law and without and/or in excess of jurisdiction, etc., on various grounds.

(3.) Before we mention the points urged before us it is necessary to mention that the Bombay Legislature amended the definition of the expression "public purpose" in S. 3 of the Act, and the definition in the Act as amended by the Bombay Legislature reads as follows: