BHALCHANDRA SHRAVAN PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been tagged together. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4357 of 2012 is one Shri Bhalchandra Shravan Patil. The said Bhalchandra was claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 135, Hissa No. 6, admeasuring 17.4 gunthas situated at village Karave, Taluka and District Thane (hereinafter referred to as "the said property"). A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Land Acquisition Act") was issued on 3rd February, 1970 by which the said property was notified for acquisition for the public purposes of setting up a satellite city of New Bombay. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 13th July, 1982. The contention of the said Bhalchandra is that on the basis of the letter of No Objection dated 9th October. 2006 issued by the second respondent which is the Special Town Planning Authority for the City of New Bombay by an order dated 25th April, 2008 in the purported exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. released the said property from acquisition. According to the case of the said Bhalchandra, on 1st July, 2008, he executed a Development Agreement in respect of the said property with M/s. Well Wisher Construction and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said Company"). The said Company is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5580 of 2012.

(2.) We may note here that on 9th October, 2006, the Chief Land and Survey Officer of the second respondent-special Planning Authority had issued aforesaid letter of No Objection recording that the said property has not been acquired by the second respondent and the same was in possession of the said Bhalchandra. In respect of the project affected persons whose lands were acquired for New Bombay Project, the State Government came out with a scheme of allotting developed plots having area of 12.5% of the area of the acquired lands to the project affected persons. On 12th December, 2008, the Chief Land and Survey Officer of the second respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had taken benefit of allotment of land under the said 12.5% scheme and by suppressing material facts and by misleading the second respondent, the said Bhalchandra had filed false documents. The said Bhalchandra was called upon to submit written explanation and was informed that the letter of No Objection dated 9th October, 2006 was revoked. The said Bhalchandra was directed not to deal with the said property and not to carry on any construction thereon. The said Bhalchandra filed a writ petition in this Court. Similarly the said Company filed a writ petition in this Court. The writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated 7th December, 2009. This Court proceeded to set aside the direction given by the second respondent not to deal with the said property and recorded the statement of the said Bhalchandra and the said Company that till 10th January, 2010 they will not enter into any transaction in relation to the said property. This Court granted liberty to the second respondent-special Planning Authority to move the Competent Authority and to adopt appropriate remedy for seeking appropriate orders. The order of this Court records that if appropriate orders are passed by the Competent Authority or any other appropriate forum, the matter shall be governed by the said orders. Otherwise, after 10th January, 2010, the petitioners in the said petitions will be entitled to deal with the said property in accordance with law.

(3.) It appears that the second respondent filed an application before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai (the third respondent in Writ Petition No. 4357 of 2012) for staying the operation of the order dated 25th August, 2008 passed by him under subsection (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act of releasing the said property from the acquisition. The order of status quo was passed by the third respondent. The said Bhalchandra filed an application on 25th January, 2010 to the third respondent for vacating the said order. On 20th August, 2010, the third respondent-additional Commissioner passed an order setting aside his own order dated 25th August, 2008 passed earlier of releasing the said property from acquisition and directing that a notification issued on the basis of the earlier order was withdrawn and set aside. Accordingly, a notification was published in the Government Gazette on 8th September, 2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the said Bhalchandra as well as the said Company filed separate writ petitions in this Court. The said writ petitions came up before this Court on 16th November, 2011. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions. This Court observed that the Application made by the Special Planning Authority for recall of the order dated 25th April, 2008 was allowed but the Application made by the said Bhalchandra for deleting the said property from acquisition was kept pending. While disposing of the petitions, this Court clarified that by the order impugned dated 20th August, 2010, the Application filed by the said Bhalchandra for deleting the said property from the acquisition has not been disposed of. It will be necessary to make a reference to the directions contained in the said order dated 16th November, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7863 of 2010 (filed by the said Company) and Writ Petition No. 7170 of 2010 (filed by the said Bhalchandra) and in particular Paragraph 6 thereof, which reads thus: