BABAN HARIBHAU YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are challenging the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial development Corporation Act, 1961. The petitioners are challenging the notice dated 11th April, 1989 and the notification dated 4th september, 1993 issued by the respondent no. 3 under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts are as under :- it is the case of the petitioners that they owned and possessed agricultural land bearing plot No. 425, admeasuring 6 acres and 14 gunthas, situate at Jejuri, Taluka Purandar, district Pune. It is contended that their names are entered into 7 x 12 extracts, both in the ownership as well as cultivation. It is further contended that they are paying assessment dues to the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners in the petition that the respondent no. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 3, pune initiated the acquisition proceedings for and on behalf of respondent No. 3. The petitioners' contention is that the Government of Maharashtra through the Industrial Labour department had issued circular dated 15th february, 1971 and by the said circular informed all its officers that as far as possible, agricultural land should not be acquired. The petitioners have further contended in the petition that the land in question is bagayat land which was partitioned in 1985 and each of the petitioners are in possession of 2 acres and 5 gunthas out of the total land. It is further averred in the petition that prior to 1982, the petitioners were owners of the land hearing Gat No. 390 which land was also situate at Jejuri, Taluka Purandar. This land was also acquired by the respondent No. 1 for and on behalf of the third respondent-MIDC. It is contended that an assurance was given at that time to the petitioners' that no further land of the petitioners holding was acquired for MIDC and that would not be rendered them homeless or landless. Thereafter, the notice dated 11th April, 1989 was issued for acquisition of the balance land which was in possession of the petitioners for and on behalf of the Maharashtra Industrial development Corporation-respondent No. 3 herein. It is contended that they had filed their objections for the said acquisition. However, without giving hearing, final notification under sub-section (2) of section 32 of the maharashtra Industrial Development Act was issued on 4th September, 1993. The petitioners had made representation against the said notice. However, since the said representation was not decided, initially they had filed suit which was withdrawn in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that the civil suit challenging the validity of the acquisition was not maintainable. After the withdrawal of the suit, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the government had from time to time issued circulars wherein the policy of the government of not acquiring the agricultural land for the purpose of industrial development had been reiterated. It is submitted that on account of these circulars wherein the said guidelines have been laid down, the government had released the lands of several persons from the proposed acquisition. The learned counsel submitted that 5 acres of land belonging to Jaysing Namdeo Hormane has been released from the acquisition. The learned counsel also invited our attention to para 18 of the petition in which the names of various persons have been mentioned. It is submitted that therefore, on the same analogy, the lands of the petitioners also are liable to be released from acquisition.