LAWS(BOM)-2001-3-99

BABU BHAU CHIPRE Vs. DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT

Decided On March 16, 2001
BABU BHAU CHIPRE Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 and to the notifications issued under sections 11 (1), 14 (1) and 15 (1) dated 2-11-1978, 24-12-1981 and 29-5-1982 respectively under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 and the notification issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Exhibit "d" and Exhibit "f" respectively ).

(2.) MR. Pandit, learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985. His only contention is that the acquisition of the land admeasuring 81 acres out of Gat No. 575 is notified on the basis that Babu Bhau Chipre held the land admeasuring 4 hectares and 54 acres: the said Babu Bhau Chipre had executed a registered Will during his lifetime on 21st May, 1979 whereby he bequeathed an area of 3 hectares 9 acres in favour of his son the present petitioner viz. Bhoopal Babu Chipre and 1 hectare 45 acres in favour of his wife Laxmibai and on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioners holding being 3 hectares 9 acres was less than 8 acres and therefore, the area of 81 acres could not have been acquired for resettlement of project affected displaced persons. In other words, the contention of Mr. Pandit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that by issuance of notification dated 2-11-78 under section 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (for short "act of 1976"), the testamentary disposition of the agricultural land gat No. 575 by the testator Babu Bhau Chipre subsequently by way of Will was not affected since such testamentary disposition is not covered by the restrictions imposed under section 12 of the Act of 1976.

(3.) SECTION 2 (10) of the Act of 1976 defines holding thus-