DILIP VASANTRAO SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the first to fourth Respondents. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the fifth Respondent. The challenge in this Petition is to the Notification dated 29th August 2012 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") - By the said Notification, urgency clause under Sub -section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act has been applied. The public purpose set out in the Notification is that the fifth Respondent which is a Planning Authority needs the lands for establishment of Oxidation Plant and Pumping Station. The contention raised in the Reply filed by the fifth Respondent is that there is an urgent need to establish the said Plant. It is contended in the reply of the State Government that the pollution level of river Godavari at Nashik is very high and it is necessary to control pollution as "Kumbha Mela" is scheduled in the year 2014 -2015. It is pointed out that grant for the said project has been received under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Project and that the project has to be completed within specified time. It is contended by the Planning Authority that in view of the order subsequently passed by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, steps are required to be taken by the Municipal Corporation for protecting the river Godavari. It is contended by the fifth Respondent Planning Authority that in view of the public purpose, it is all the more necessary to complete the acquisition proceedings urgently in as much as Godavari River is already polluted to a great extent. The learned AGP has tendered across the bar a communication dated 26th February 2013 signed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition No. 2) Nashik. On instructions, she states that the State Government is agreeable not to apply urgency clause under Sub -section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act and to give an opportunity of being heard in accordance with Section 5A of the said Act to the Petitioners as well as to the persons interested whose names have been set out in the communication dated 26th February 2013.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid statements made by the learned AGP, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpal (Dead) by Lrs. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, 2012 2 SCC 327, the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the said Act will have to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the challenge in the Petition is to the very existence of the public purpose as claimed in the Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth Respondent has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Narain and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1996 1 SCC 9].

(3.) WE have considered the submissions. Perusal of Sub -section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act shows that when the appropriate Government is of the opinion that there is urgency as contemplated by Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 17 of the said Act, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5A of the said Act shall not apply and a declaration may be made under Section 6 of the said Act in respect of the land at any time after the date of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. As of today, a Notification under Section 6 of the said Act has not been published. The purpose of Section 5A of the said Act is to give an opportunity to persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired to object to the acquisition of land. It is obvious from Subsection (1) of Section 5A of the said Act that the person interested can raise an objection that the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired does not exist. Sub -section (2) of Section 5A of the said Act contemplates that the Collector shall give an opportunity of being heard to objector in the manner provided therein. Thereafter, he is under an obligation to submit a report to the appropriate Government for the decision of the appropriate Government. After considering the report made under Sub -section (2) of Section 5A of the said Act, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for the public purpose, a Notification to that effect is required to be issued under Section 6 of the said Act.