ANURADHA DNYANDEO INGLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge raised in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the award dtd. 2/12/2015 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jigaon Project, District Buldhana under Sec. 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894). According to the petitioners, the said award has not been passed in the manner contemplated by Ss. 6 to 9 of the Act of 1894 and is also in breach of provisions of Sec. 11 A thereof.

(2.) Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894 came to be issued proposing to acquire land admeasuring 30 Hectares 91 Ares for re-settlement of residents of village Yerli, Taluka Nandura, District Buldhana in view of submergence of lands under Jigaon Project. Notice in that regard was published in the Tahsil Office, Nandura on 2/2/2013. The objections raised to the proposed acquisition were submitted by twenty four land owners on 11/2/2013. The same were considered in an enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act of 1894 on 5/3/2013. These objections came to be finally decided on 24/6/2013. Since it was decided to acquire the said lands, a declaration under Sec. 6(1) of the Act of 1894 came to be published in the official gazette on 25/7/2013. The declaration was also published in daily 'Shiv-Sandesh' on the same day and in daily 'Nirbhay Sanchar' on 6/8/2013. As per the said award, public notice of the declaration under Sec. 6(2) as well as notices under Sec. 9(1) and (2) of the Act of 1894 came to be issued on 5/12/2013. Thereafter on 2/12/2015 the award in question came to be passed.

(3.) This writ petition was filed on 23/12/2013 raising a challenge to the notification issued under Sec. 4(1) as well as subsequent notices issued under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1894. On 24/12/2013 while issuing notice this Court permitted the acquisition proceedings to continue but directed that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. Thereafter on 24/2/2016 it was informed that the award dtd. 2/12/2015 had been passed. The writ petition was amended and challenge was raised to the award dtd. 2/12/2015. This Court called upon the respondents to explain as to whether the final notification under Sec. 6 had been published after service of notices under Sec. 9 (3) and (4) of the Act of 1894. Since it was urged that declaration under Sec. 6(2) had been made after issuance of notices under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1894, the writ petition was admitted for consideration.