AJITSINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition praying for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing certain notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The State of Maharashtra the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, the Collector, Chanda and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chanda are the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner by a purchase deed purchased a land khasra no. 198/1 of Ballarpur, taluka and district Chanda ad measuring 2. 45 acres from one Sadashiv Krishnaji Khanke. The deed is dated 29th January 1966 and it was registered on the same day. On the same day, the petitioner gave intimation of the purchase to the Patwari of Ballapur to effect mutation entries. It is stated in the petition and not denied in the counter - affidavit that such a mutation entry was made towards the end of 1967, the exact date is not mentioned, but we are informed across the Bar was 16th November 1967.

(3.) A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 1 - 2- 1968 for acquisition for the public purposes mentioned in the notification. Amongst the lands sought to be acquired by the notification were 47, 250 sq. ft. out of the petitioner's said land bearing khasra no. 198/1. On 22nd August, 1968, a notification was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette under Section 6 of the Act and amongst the lands acquired thereunder and the lands mentioned therein were 47,045 sq. ft. out of the petitioner's land bearing khasra no. 198/1. In the second week of November 1968, the petitioner received a notice from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no. 4, which states that it is a notice under clause (8) of Section 9 of the Act. The notice bears no date. It gave notice to the petitioner to appear before the fourth respondent on 26th November 1968. It is the petitioner's case that it was from this notice that the petitioner came to know for the first time about the said acquisition proceedings in respect of his said land. The petitioner appeared before the fourth respondent in pursuance of the said notice and raised various contentions. One of such contentions was that he had received no notice or an individual notice after the notification under Section 4 was issued and he had therefore been unable to raise objections as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act and that the notification under Section 6 having been issued in such circumstances was invalid.