MADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition questions the process of the land acquisition with regard to which S.4 notification was issued on Dec. 17, 1968. The land to the extent of 18 acres 3 gunthas was needed for the purpose of Government Polytechnic to be established at Yavatmal. Eventually after holding enquiry, S.6 notification came to be issued on Jan. 13, 1970. It appears from the proceedings that S.9 proceedings were initiated thereafter and on 25-5-1970 claims statements were taken. The petitioner is claiming through claimant Gopalrao Sanap. By the end of 1970 recording of evidence was also completed. Thereafter the case was taken after three years in the year 1973. Spot was also inspected and after 12-9-1974 the award proceedings were adjourned from time to time because allotment of necessary funds for compensation was not available. Eventually the award appears to have been made on 28-3-1983. Thus the offer that is required to be made by passing the award under S.11 of the Act was finally made by this date.

(2.) Against the background to these facts Mr. Chandurkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner had no notice of the award proceedings for, he was an adopted son of Gopalrao Sanap, and by reason of the ante-adoption gift the property came to him. Thus for the person interested, unless specific notice was given all these proceedings would be vitiated for want of notice. Secondly, he contended that even assuming that the petitioner was not so entitled to individual notice and his interests were sufficiently represented by Gopalrao Sanap, the very fact that 15 years elapsed from the final notification under S.4 which was made in the year 1968 was indicative that the public purpose for which the acquisition was resorted to was no more in existence; at least it was illusory and the proceedings, therefore, should be quashed. Alternatively, the counsel submitted that by reason of delay which is apparent on the face of record, the award itself in the sum of Rs. 36,375/- is hardly a just and reasonable compensation. He submitted that if the record is seen there was no reason not to declare the award at least after 1973 and the delay between 1973 to 1983 cannot go to the prejudice of the claimant.

(3.) As against this submission Mr. Sambre pointed out that Gopalrao Sanap participated in the proceedings right from the stage of S.5A and that the property stood in the name of Gopalrao Sanap himself notwithstanding the ante-adoption agreement. He further submitted that only because there is delay in making the award, that is no reason to presume that the public purpose is not in existence. As far as the delay in passing the final award between the period 1973 to 1983 is concerend the counsel submitted the delay was caused due to the administrative reasons.