HANSRAJ H JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in all these special leave petitions and the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties made submissions. Since all these matters relate to common question of law and fact, the matters were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. All these matters arise out of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petitions moved before the said High Court inter alia challenging the validity of acquisition of large tracts of land adjoining the city of Bombay for the purpose of setting up a new township to be known as New Bombay. The State of Maharashtra issued notices under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act between February, 1968 and February, 1970 for the purpose of acquiring huge tracts of lands covering 86 villages in Trans Harbour, Panvel and Trans Thane Creek area for the purpose of planned development and utilisation of the said lands for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. Declarations under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were also issued in 1971 and 1972. The acquisition proceedings were, however, concluded after a long lapse of time by giving awards in 1985 and 1986.

(2.) Mr. G. Ramaswamy has appeared for the appellants in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos. 13719 and 13459 of 1992. Mr. U. Lalit has appeared for the appellants in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 14710 of 1992. Mr. A.K. Ganguli has appeared in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 15359 of 1992. Mr. Ganguli has appeared for the appellants in the rest of the appeals. As all these matters are disposed of by a common judgment, it is not proposed to refer individual arguments raised by the learned Counsels separately. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the appellants are to the following effect:-

(3.) Coming to the contention of inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings thereby rendering acquisition proceedings invalid, the learned Counsels have submitted that the Government of Maharashtra was entirely responsible for the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. The acquiring authority miserably failed to explain the long delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any valid explanation for such inordinate delay, particularly in the absence of any statutory permission or restrain against passing of the awards, the exercise of power to acquire lands according to convenience and carprices of the concerned authorities, becomes unreasonable and unfair. Every public authority is bound to act reasonably and fairly in exercise of power and arbitrary and capricious action should not be countenanced by law courts more so, when such arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power clearly causes prejudice and loss to the citizens. It is not open for the State to contend that it will keep the notifications issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act alive for years together and then complete the acquisition proceedings according to its own pleasure and pass awards at convenient and opportune time. Such contention is alien to the scheme formulated under the Land Acquisition Act.