PANJARPOLE SANSTHA SANGLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek to challenge Order 9th May 1985 issued by the Collector, Sangli. The lands in question fall in Gut No. 2015 and 2014 admeasuring 10 Hectares 81 R and 5 Hectares 37 R respectively. In the said Order, it is recited that the construction of Warana Irrigation Major Project was undertaken by the Irrigation Department at Village Chandoli in Shirala Taluka and the gorge filling work had started. Ample water was stored in the project. However, village Siddheshwar was submerged by this stored water and no access was left to shift this village after 15th May 1985. The shifting of the village was to he done on top priority basis. The lands were covered by the provisions of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976. The land acquisition proceedings came to be initiated. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was also completed. However, possession was urgently required to be taken. In the above circumstances, possession was sought to be taken under the provisions of Section 20-B of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the provisions of the M. R. P. D. Act, 1976 and particularly" Section 16, once proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been initiated it is not open to the Government to take possession under Section 20 of the Bombey Land Requisition Act, 1948. We do not see any merit in the said contention. As stated hereinabove, possession was urgently required to Be taken. There is no bar under the M. R. P. D. Act 1976 restricting the powers of the Government to take possession under emergent circumstances under provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. Merely because Government initiated proceedings under Section 4 and also completed enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, did not estop the Government from proceeding to take possession under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. In cases of emergent circumstances, the Government is always empowered to take possession of the property. One more fact may be mentioned that large number of Petitions challenging various Notifications concerning Warana Project were filed at the relevant time. The Government was restrained in these matters, from proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act read with the M. R. D. P. Act, 1976. However, in the present case, the Government found that for emergent circumstances, particularly where a village was required to be shifted, possession was immediately required to be taken and in the light of the circumstances enumerated hereinabove, the Government took possession under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. As stated hereinabove, there is no bar under the M. R. D. P. Act 1976, restraining Government from taking possession under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948.

(3.) IN the. circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition fails. Rule is discharged with costs.