LAWS(BOM)-1980-11-8

GULAB SHANKAR WALVE Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Decided On November 24, 1980
GULAB SHANKAR WALVE Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven petitions raise a common question of and can, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment, The lands in dispute, notified for acquisition u/ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the L. A. Act), are all situate in village Dhandarphai (BK). Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The petitioners in these seven petitions are the owners of those different lands. It is not in dispute that these lands are sought to be acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating the displaced persons, affected by the Upper Pravara Project in Ahmednagar District. The Government of Maharashtra has issued a Notification dt 16th May 1978 u/s. 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Re-settlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The provisions of the Act are made applicable to the said Upper Pravara Project. The Notification also specifies the villages likely to fall in the affected or benefited zones of the said project, as required under the said S. 11(1). Dhandarphal (BK) village is one of the villages notified as being a village in the benefited zones. Ss. 4 and 6 Notifications under L. A Act have been issued thereafter in all these cases. Before S. 6 Notification was issued, objection in writing were raised by all the petitioners asserting that proper esquire under the Act was not made. Subsequently, even notification and notices under Sub-secs. (3) and (4) of S. 9 of the L.A. Act have been issued and the urgency clause was thereafter applied, and the petitioners were called upon to deliver possession of the respective lands u/s 17(1) of the L.A. Act, The validity of the said notifications, notices and the acquisition proceedings is challenged in all these petitions.

(2.) Mr. Abhale, Mr. Thorat, Mr. Lalit and Mr. Kerkar, the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners raised several points in support of these petitions. It however, appears to us to be enough to take notice of only one point as to the non-compliance with Ss. 13 to 15 of the Act. the point goes to the root of the matter and the present proceedings are liable to be quashed on that court itself.

(3.) It is necessary to examine the scheme of the act to deal with this contention. The Act is a special piece of legislation providing for resettlement of "certain" persons displaced from lands required for any projects of public utility. Apart from providing for cash grants. S. 10 of the Act contemplates resetting as many displaced persons as possible on the land (1) in the benefited zone, or 2 (a) in other lands forming part of the "land pool" as defined u/s. 2(ii) The "land pool" has to the worked out in accordance with Ss. 13 to 15 of the Act and secured by the modes indicated in S. 16 S. 13(I) makes it clear that even the land of the 'Geothan' affected by the project is liable to be acquired for such resettlement.