BAJIRAO T KOTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court, Bombay, dated June 13, 1979 in Writ Petition No. 587 of 1979. The Govt. of Maharashtra published in the State Gazette the notification issued under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short, the Act) on October 11, 1972, acquiring the lands including House No. 594/ B admeasuring about 25 x 25 for public trust "Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi", the validity of which was challenged by the appellants in the writ petition. The Division Bench rejected their writ petitions in limine. Thus this appeal.

(2.) It is contended for the appellants that the specification of the "public purpose" in the notification is vague and acquisition for Saibaba Sansthan is of no public purpose. For the first time before the High Court, the respondents had disclosed in their counter-affidavit, namely, that the land was needed for joining two temples, i.e. Saibaba and Dwaraka Mai Mandir. Even that also is of no public purpose, since those two temples have been in existence for well over years without any need for them to be connected. There is no specification either in the notification or in the counter-affidavit to disclose the purpose behind the proposed acquisition denying to the appellants an opportunity to effectively object to the acquisition. Right of objection statutorily given to the owner of the land under S. 5A of the Act should not be made illusory by vague statement of public purpose. It is, therefore, a colourable exercise of the power and also is vitiated on the ground of vagueness.

(3.) It is also contended that by running the business of selling flowers in the house proposed to be acquired to the pilgrims and a small hotel is being run, they would also serve public purpose of catering service to the pilgrims denying their livelihood, offend their right to life. Attempts were made to purchase the property from the appellants by negotiation which were turned down by the Charity Commissioner by his finding that the purchase does not serve any public purpose. Therefore, the exercise of the power by the State under S. 4 is mala fide amenable to judicial review under Art. 226 and Art. 136 of the Constitution. It is also further contended that for the construction of a huge Dharamshala, a resting room and Prachar Hall, the area under acquisition is too small. The total extent is only 60 sq. meter in all and no useful purpose will be served by -acquiring such a small piece of land for a large project.