VIJAYKUMAR SATYANARAYAN AGROYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides.

(2.) Before adverting to the arguments it would be appropriate to appreciate the facts.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr. Kale for the petitioners would refer to the decision in the matter of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.; AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1500 and would emphasize that a notice to the owners of the property as contemplated under Sec. 12(2) of the Act is a necessary concomitant for determining the date of the award to enable the owner of the property to resort to reference under Sec. 18 of the Act if he is not satisfied with the amount of compensation. When no such notice was ever served to the petitioners, their vital right to claim enhanced compensation would be lost. Consequently, there is no award passed in the eye of law. The award that has been passed would stand lapsed by virtue of the provision of Sec. 11- A of the Act. Mr. Kale would also emphasize the fact that following the decision in the matter of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) this Court has also consistently taken a similar view in following matters: