GULSHAN LAXMAN CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the proceedings of acquisition of various lands at villages Gajabandhan - Pathrli, Village Chole and Ajde Golavali, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the virtue of Notification under section 4(I) of the Land Acquisition, Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894) which was published in the Government Gazette dated 30th March, 1961. A Notification under Section 6 of the said Act, 1894 was published in the Government Gazette dated 17th May, 1962. The acquisition was for the development and utilization of the lands as an industrial and residential area. It is alleged in the petition that by applying "urgency" clause under section 17(4) of the said Act of 1894, possession of the lands was taken over and the same was handed over on 27th March, 1963 to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Limited (the third respondent), which has been incorporated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as said Act of 1961).

(2.) The contention raised in the petition is that since the third respondent is a company, the procedure provided in the Part -VII of the said Act of 1894 ought to have been followed. Another contention is that in any event, the acquisition could have been made under the said Act of 1961. The case made out in the petition is that late Pandurang Mukadam was the owner of the lands in-question situated at village Mauje Ajde Golivali, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane and the petitioners are the legal representatives of said Pandurang.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the acquisition has been completed in the year 1963 and though the petition has been filed in the year 2012, there is more than sufficient explanation for the delay. He pointed out that a ground of fraud on statute has been pleaded. He submitted that the delay will not come in the way of petitioners. He submitted that the lands of the petitioners were neither 'waste' nor 'arable' lands as claimed while invoking urgency clause under section 17(4) of the said Act of 1894. He submitted that the lands held by said Pandurang were assessed to land revenue as agricultural lands and the same were not fit for immediate use as non-agricultural or industrial lands or for building purposes or for other industrial purposes. He submitted that most important factual aspect is that the lands held by Pandurang which were acquired were never used for industrial and residential purposes. He submitted that there is a failure on the part of the third respondent to use the acquired lands for the public purpose, for which the same were acquired. He urged that there are gross illegalities committed in as much as the acquisition for the third respondent could have been only under the Part VII of said Act of 1894 relating to the acquisition of land for the companies and that urgency clause under section 17(4) of the said Act of 1894 could not have been invoked. He urged that though the lands held by Pandurang were agricultural lands, the same were taken over by claiming that same were 'waste' or 'arable' lands. He accepted that said Pandurang died in the year 1972 and that he did not raise any objection to the acquisition. He submitted that only in the year 2011, the petitioners who are the legal representative of deceased Pandurang became aware that lands in-question were owned by said Pandurang before it's acquisition. He pointed out that an attempt was made by the petitioners to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He relied upon communication issued by the Area Manager-cum-Information Officer of the second respondent dated 5th September, 2011, on the basis of application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He pointed out that except for supplying the information that the land was acquired in the year 1961 under the said Act of 1894, no other information was supplied. He submitted that under the Right to Information Act, shocking information was obtained by the petitioners, which shows that in the year 1991 a Policy was framed by the third Respondent for allotment of the plots out of the acquired lands for various purposes other than industrial or residential use. He submitted that allotment of the lands was sought to be made for various users, apart from industrial and residential user.