MARUTI BABURAO TAMBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short issue, which arises for consideration in the present proceeding, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of an explicit jurisdiction conferred by law on a quasi judicial authority, to review an order passed by it, is it justified for the petitioners to pursue a review application.

(2.) The petitioners, who are the owners of the land in question and subject matter of acquisition, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a limited relief that the application filed by the petitioners for review of an order dtd. 8/6/2004 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, be decided expeditiously. By such order, the petitioners' application under Sec. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "LA Act") and under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short, "the Act") has been rejected.

(3.) It is not in dispute that an award under Sec. 11 of the LA Act acquiring petitioners' land was rendered on 11/3/1981. The predecessors of the petitioners had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 979 of 1981 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Pune for a declaration that the acquisition is void and illegal. In such suit, the petitioners were granted an interim protection of a status quo which continued to operate till the civil suit came to be disposed of by an order dtd. 5/9/1997, on the ground that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction.