SITARAM SHIVCHANDRAI GARODIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition for setting aside the acquisition of the land forming part of Survey No. 249 of village Ghatkopar, Taluka Kurla, Bombay Suburban District (hereinafter referred to as "the said land" ). The petitioners on 5-12-1966 submitted a proposed lay out of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 249, Hissa No. 1 (part) admeasuring about 30,000 sq. yds. to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, respondent No. 5 herein. On 17-3-1967 respondent No. 5 approved the proposed lay out as per the conditions stated in the letter dated 17-3-1967. However, the petitioners received a communication from respondent No. 5 (Municipal Corporation) on 31-5-1967 stating in it that the land in respect of which proposed lay out was approved is affected by the arterial siding proposed by the Central Railway. The petitioners thereafter on 16th June, 1967 addressed letter to respondent No. 5 (Municipal Corporation) to the effect that the sanction of the proposals for the lay out of the building cannot be withheld on account of railway siding as there were no legal proceedings to that effect. In spite of the aforesaid letter and other letters addressed by the present petitioners on 10th April, 1968 respondent No. 5 Municipal Corporation refused approval of building plans and IOD inter alia on the ground that the plot is affected by the proposed arterial railway siding.

(2.) THEREFORE, on 3rd December, 1969 the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 178 of 1969 against respondent No. 5 for permission to construct as per the lay out plan and the said writ petition was admitted by the High Court. While the said writ petition was pending on 22nd June, 1978 notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20th June, 1978 was published in the Gazette. On 4th July, 1978 Writ Petition No. 178 of 1969 which was filed against respondent No. 5 Municipal Corporation for permission to construct was withdrawn by the present petitioners on the ground that the land was required by the Government for public utility. However, liberty was given to the present petitioners to take such steps as advised in the event the acquisition is abandoned. Notice under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15th June, 1981 and the Land Acquisition Officer started acquisition proceedings. On 23rd September, 1986 LAO issued notice under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act stating in it that he has declared award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the award was declared on 23rd September, 1986.

(3.) THEREAFTER on 23rd September, 1986 LAO gave notice to the petitioners that they should remain present on the said land acquired at 10. 30 A. M. on 17-10-1986. After the receipt of the aforesaid notice petitioners decided to file writ petition and therefore on 15-10-1986 petitioners gave notice to respondents more particularly respondents Nos. 1 to 4 stating in it that they have filed Writ Petition No. 2754 of 1986 and the said writ petition was fixed for admission on 17th October, 1986 and therefore requesting LAO respondent No. 2 not to take any steps in acquisition matter and to maintain status quo. On 17th October, 1986 when the matter came up for admission rule was issued by this High Court. However, no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioners in the said writ petition as counsel for the Government made the statement before the Court at the time of admission that the possession of the land was already taken from the petitioners by respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that though the statement was made by counsel for the Government to the effect that the possession of the land was taken no proof was given on behalf of the Government to the effect that the said possession was in fact taken. However, fact remains that in view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the Government no interim relief was granted in favour of the present petitioners.