MANAKCHAND SARUPCHAND LUNAVAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and relate to the same proceedings, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

(2.) A development plan for Nashik City was sanctioned by the State Government and brought into force in the year 1959. In this plan, the lands involved in these writ petition were reserved for road widening. Thereafter in the year 1975, the said plan was sought to be revised and a revised draft plan was published which came to be sanctioned in the year 1980 and came into force on 29th of November, 1980. In this revised plan also, the properties in question were reserved for road widening. On 19th of March, 1980 by a request letter to the collector in that behalf procedure for acquisition of lands was started by the then, Administrator of the Municipal Council, Nasik. In its turn the said proposal came to be forwarded by the Collector to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter a notification dated 31st August, 1981 came to be published in the Government Gazette on 1st of October, 1981 under section 126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.P. Act and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Notices under section 9(1) and 9(2) were duly published in accordance with law by the Talathi of the area on 29th October, 1981, 4th November, 1981 and 5th November, 1981. Notices on the interested persons were also served under section 9(3) and 9(4) of the Act on 3rd November, 1981. Thereafter the award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 17th August, 1986. The said award was declared on 23rd September, 1986 and notices under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued to the interested persons. From the record it appears that on 10th of November, 1983 in the meanwhile a corrigendum was also issued by the Commissioner, Nasik Division for inclusion of the property for acquisition which was inadvertantly left out. After declaration of the award and issuance of the notices under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, present writ petitions came to be filed in the month of November 1986, challenging the proceedings for acquisition of the properties as well as the ultimate award passed.

(3.) Shri Kankaria, Manudhane and Ganu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, have contended before us that the proceedings instituted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer are void ab-initio. The proceedings are based on the development plan of 1959 but the notifications came to be issued on the basis of the revised plan of 1980. Before starting proceedings for acquisition of lands, the Collector had not obtained the sanction from the State Government, under section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification dated 1-10-1980 is also ultra vires and without jurisdiction as well as a nullity as the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the notification under section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act. Therefore, the proceedings started and the notification issued by the Additional Commissioner are void ab-initio. Further the said notification is contrary to the Government circular dated 28th of September, 1980, which provides that the proposals of the development plan should be implemented only after ensuring necessary rehabilitation of the affected persons. It was then contended that the award passed is also illegal, since it is passed in breach of the provisions of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also contended that though apparently it appears that the award was signed on 17th August, 1986 and declared on 23rd of September, 1986, in fact it came to be communicated vide communication dated 12th of October, 1986, which was served on the petitioners sometime thereafter, which is beyond the period prescribed by section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, in substance it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner had no authority to issue the impugned notification and the award passed is also contrary to section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition proceedings are also violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution.