SADRUDDIN SULEMAN JHAVERI Vs. J H PATWARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Special Civil Application there are challenged two Notification under the Land Acquisition Act whereby the land of the petitioner has been taken by the State of Maharashtra the third respondent before us. On 24th January 1963 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued under the signature of the Commissioner of Bombay Division, the first respondent before us. Since almost every paragraph of this Notifications argued before us it is worthwhile to reproduce the whole of this Notifications. It runs as follows :-"no. LAQ-B - 7244-B- Whereas it appears to the Commissioner, Bombay Division, that the lands specified in the Schedule herein (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) are needed for a public purpose viz. for development and utilisation of lands as an industrial area. It is hereby notified under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), that the said lands, are needed for the public purpose specified above. All persons interested in the said lands are hereby warned not to obstruct or interfere with any surveyors or other persons employed upon the said lands for the purpose of the said acquisition. Any contracts for the disposal of the said lands by sale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange or otherwise, or any outlay or improvement made therein without the sanction of the Collector, after the date of this notification, will under Section 24 (seventhly) of the said Act, be disregarded by the Officer assessing compensation for such parts of the said lands as may be finally acquired. And whereas the Commissioner, Bombay Division, is of the opinion that the said lands are waste or arable lands and that their acquisition is urgently necessary ; he is further pleased to direct under Sub-section (4) of Section of the said Act that the provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act, shall not apply in respect of the said lands. Under Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Commissioner, Bombay Division, is pleased to appoint the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ulhas Valley Project, Thana, to perform the functions of a Collector under Section 4 (1) of the said Act, in respect of the said lands. SCHEDULE district Thana, Taluka Thana, Village pachpakhadi block No. Survey No. Hissa No. Approximate area of the lands required a. g. a. 111 xxx xx xxx xxx xx xxx 373 17 32 0"

(2.) IT will be clear from this Notification that a plot of land admeasuring 7 acres and 32 gunthas belonging to the petitioner was sought to be acquired for a public purpose. The declaration in the Notification under Section 6 is "for development and utilization of hands as an industrial area". One of the several points that have been raised in this petition is that this does not constitute a public purpose and, therefore, the Notification is bad. In the Notification under Section 4 the Commissioner has stated that those lands were in his opinion waste or arable lands and their acquisition was urgently necessary. They were therefore taken without recourse to the provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act. This dispensation of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act was by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The Notification under Section 4 was followed by a Notification under Section 6 on 28th March 1963. Since the Notification under Section 4 had dispensed with the intermediate procedure provided by Section 5-A, Notification under Section 6 was issued without reference to that section. In the Notification under Section 6 the "public purpose" is specified in the Schedule as "for the development and utilisation of lands as an industrial area".

(3.) ON 30th April 1963 the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ulhas Valley Project, served a Notice on the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act. that notice was actually dated 19th April 1963 but was served on the petitioner on 30th April 1963. It was followed by a notice to hand over possession on the 6th May 1963 because of the application of Section 17 (4 ). It though dated 19th April 1963 and calling upon him to attend at the time of taking possession i. e. at 12 noon on 6th May 1963, was actually served on him on 7th May 1963 after possession was taken. On 30th April 1963 a further notice was served upon the petitioner by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the second respondent, to appear before him on that 15th of May 1963 and to lodge his claim for compensation. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the notice dated 19th April 1963 informing the petitioner that possession of the land would be taken on May 1963, the petitioner's land was taken possession of on 6th May 1963. It also admitted that on the same day to the fourth respondent the Maharshtra State Industrial Development Corporation. All this was pointed out in a letter dated 14th May 1963 written by the petitioner's attorneys complaining that the acquisition was illegal. The present petition was filed on 12th June 1963.