BABASAHEB DAGADU BHURALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. B. Khandare, learned A. G. P. , for the respondents.

(2.) RULE made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Mr. N. B. Khandare, learned A. G. P. , waives service for respondents.

(3.) THE petitioner has approached this Court to direct the respondent No. 2 to restore the lands Gat No. 133 and 136 at village Katpur, Taluqa Paithan, District Aurangabad to the petitioner within three months for his cultivation. The petitioner was owner of the said lands. These lands were required by the Government for the purposes of Jayakwadi project and, therefore, the Collector, Aurangabad carried out a land acquisition proceeding and the lands were acquired compulsorily under the said provisions and the compensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act was also paid. The acquisition proceedings were completed in the year 1965. However, these lands have not been used for the said project and the lands are being utilized for open jail, located at Jayakwadi project. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court for return of the said land in view of the Government Resolution No. LQN 3473/hi, dated 10-10-1973, issued by the Revenue and Forests Department. In Clause (B) of the said Government Resolution, it is provided that if, however, the acquired land found surplus and/or unutilized, cannot be used for any public purpose within the period of three years from the date of taking over possession thereof immediately, the department concerned should relinquish the land to the Collector of the district concerned. The Collector of the district concerned should then take steps for restoration of such lands to the original owner, perpetual lessee or the tenant having security of tenure under the various tenancy laws in force, on payment of market value which should not exceed double the amount of compensation that is paid, subject to the ceiling limit prescribed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. We have noticed that this procedure is contrary to the provisions of law and more specifically the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in A. I. R. 1997 S. C. 2703 (State of Kerala and others v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and another) We have also noticed that this Government Resolution is contrary to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 and, therefore, the notice was issued to the Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department to file an affidavit. After the issuance of the notice, now the Government has filed the affidavit accepting that the said Government Resolution is contrary to the existing law and it will not be enforced. It is further reported to this Court that all actions which are pending as on today in view of 1973 Resolution, referred to above, are being stayed and the lands will be disposed of in accordance with the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971. The Government is further saying that they want to modify the circular. We are least concerned at this stage with the modification. Whenever such a notification is effected, it will be considered whether it is proper or not in the light of the law existing then. As we have noticed that the Government has fairly conceded to the position of law and has assured that the lands will not be restored on the basis of 1973 Government Resolution above referred, we are satisfied with the approach of the Government. We make it clear again that after acquisition when the possession is taken by the Government the land absolutely vests in the Government and all the rights of the person who was holding the said land prior to the acquisition are extinguished and said person has no right as against that property even though the Government may not have used the said property for the said pubic purpose. The Government can utilize the said property for any other public purpose and/or if the Government feels that the Government does not want to keep the said lands with it, it can dispose of the said property as laid down under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Lands) Rules, 1971. Thus, we find that there is no substance in the petition. It is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Petition rejected.