BHAGCHAND GOVARDHAN NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. The learned Counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner was owner of Survey No. 17 (New Gut No. 50) , admeasuring 6h, 58 R. , of land situated at Taroda, Tq. Motala, District buldhana. Proceedings under Land Acquisition Act were initiated and notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19-7- 1984. Section 6 notification was issued on 17-8-1985 and award in the Special land Acquisition case No. LAO 93-93-84 of village Taroda was made on 24-10- 1986.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that, as per the award the petitioner is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 16,988.40. The learned Counsel for petitioner further submitted that notice was issued by rehabilitation Officer, Buldhana to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was informed that his land out of survey No. 17 area 1 H, 21 R, was acquired for rehabilitation of the project affected persons, however, after distribution of the land to the project affected persons, the land of the petitioner remained surplus and, therefore, the land of the petitioner under acquisition was to be given back to him, and the petitioner was required to intimate whether he was prepared to take back the said land as per order of the State Government. The said information was required to be given by the petitioner within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice issued by the rehabilitation officer. It is contended by the petitioner that on 16-4-1990, he informed the Rehabilitation Officer, Buldhana his willingness to take back the land under acquisition. However, after the said communication of willingness submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner did not receive any communication or reply in this regard, and therefore, a reminder was also sent by the petitioner to the Rehabilitation Officer in this regard, even then no steps were taken by the Rehabilitation Officer to restore the land to the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore constrained to file the present Writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the award is passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the present case, however, possession of land in question is with the petitioner till date, and therefore, the land under acquisition did not vest with the State Government, consequently the land in question can be restored back to the petitioner. In order to substantiate his contention, reliance is placed in the judgment delivered by the supreme Court reported in 2001 (2) Scale 528, Jethumal vs. State of Bihar.