STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BASANTIBAT MOHANLAL KHETAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated November 8, 1983 in Writ Petition No. 4192 of 1981 by which the High Court declared sub-sec. (3) and sub-sec. (4) of S. 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1976 (Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as void and gave certain ancillary directions.

(2.) One Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan was the owner of a piece of land measuring 3.98.60 hectares bearing Survey No. 28 at village Bhushi in Maval taluka of Pune district having purchased it under the sale deed dated January 18, 1966. The said land is, however, situated within the municipal limits of Lonavala town. Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan died on May 18, 1976 leaving behind him his widow, respondent No. 1, and children, respondents Nos. 2 to 5, as his heirs. On August 1, 1978 the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') established under section 3 of the Act wrote a letter to the Municipal Council, Lonavala seeking information regarding its needs for providing housing accommodation to economically weaker sections and to persons belonging to low income group and middle income group residing within Lonavala municipal limits. In order to ascertain the demand for tenements, the Municipal Council of Lonavala issued two advertisements in local newspapers on August 3, 1978 and February 10, 1979 inviting applications for housing accommodation from the general public. After taking into consideration the representations made by the people and assessing their requirements, the Municipal Council informed the Authority about the extent of land needed for providing housing accommodation for the people. The Authority in its turn informed the State Government by its letter dated September 15, 1979 that an extent of 26 hectares of land was needed initially for providing accommodation for people within the limits of Lonavala Municipal Council and requested the State Government to issue a notification under sub-section (1) of S. 41 of the Act. The proposal was processed by the Public Works Department and the Housing Department of the State Government and a notice was published under the proviso to section 41(1) of the Act in Government Gazette dated August 30, 1979 inviting objections to the proposed acquisition. In that notice it was mentioned that the Government proposed to acquire the land which originally belonged to Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan referred to above also. Pursuant to the said notice Chandrakant Mohanlal Khetan, respondent No. 3 herein, lodged his protest on September 6, 1979. After considering the various objections received from different people including the objections filed by Chandrakant Mohanlal Khetan on behalf of himself and the other co-owners the State Government published the notification under sub-section (1) of S.. 41 in its Gazette dated July 3, 1980. On the publication of the said notification the land mentioned in it including the land of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. On December 12, 1980 a notice was issued under S. 42(1) of the Act to the holders of the lands which had been notified under S. 41 (1) of the Act to surrender and deliver possession to the Collector, Pune within a period of 30 days. In January 1981, the legal representatives of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan objected to the notice on the ground that Survey No. 28 of village Bhushi, that is, the land belonging to them had not actually been notified in the notification published in the Gazette as it had been shown as laying in village Maval and not in village Bhushi. On discovering the error which had crept into the notification, on May 15, 1981 the State Government published a corrigendum making the requisite correction and thereafter issued a fresh notice on September 15, 1981 to the heirs of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan to deliver possession of the land bearing Survey No. 28 of village Bhushi situated within the municipal limits of Lonavala. The widow and children of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan, respondents herein, thereafter filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises on December 17,1981 on the file of the High Court of Bombay questioning the validity of proceedings leading up to the issue of the notification under section 41(1) of the Act and also the notification.

(3.) The respondents contended in the writ petition filed by them inter alia:(i) that there was no material with the State Government to form an opinion about the need for issuing the notification under section 41(1) of the Act; (ii) that the respondents had not been heard personally after they had filed the objections under the proviso to section 41 (1) of the Act to the proposal of acquisition; (iii) that the land of the respondents had actually not been notified; and (iv) that the provisions of sub-ss. (3) and (4) of S. 44 of the Act which contained the basis for the determination of compensation payable in respect of the land. were violative of Art. 14, Art. 19 and Art. 31 of the Constitution and therefore the said two sub-sections and the notification were liable to be declared as void. They also stated that the compensation payable to them was illusory in its quantum and the procedure prescribed for the acquisition was not fair and reasonable.