JAMBURAO SATYAPPA CHOUGULE Vs. DIRECTOR OF RESETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition challenging the validity of the Maharashtra Act No.XIII of 1985 and also challenging the acquisition of land of the Petitioners. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.

(2.) AT the outset it may be mentioned that though the main grievance of the Petitioner is about the validity of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985, the question no longer survives for consideration in view of a Division Bench Decision of this Court reported in Dhurgonda Dada Patil v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, A.I.R. 1989 Bom 286 where this Court has upheld the validity of the said Act. Now we are concerned only with the question of acquisition of the land of the Petitioners. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 claim to be the tenants and Petitioners Nos.3 to 5 are landlord of the land which has been proposed to be acquired in these proceedings. The land in dispute is Gat No.1657 admeasuring 1 H. 2 R which is notified for acquisition. It is stated that Gat No.1657 admeasuring 2 H and 72 R and half share in Gat No.1656 were tenanted by Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and Petitioners Nos.3 to 5 were the landlord and the lease was in force prior to 2.11.1978 when Notification under Section 11(1) of the Resettlement Act was issued. It is also stated that during the subsequent tenancy proceedings under Section 32-D of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act the Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 got a certificate in their favour and they have become owners. The certificate was issued on 7.6.1982 under Section 32-M of the Tenancy Act. It is therefore submitted that Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of the land proposed to be acquired as on the date of acquisition namely 2.11.1978 as tenants and therefore, the suit land cannot be acquired, since extent of land with Petitioner will be less than the statutory limit of 8 acres as provided in Section 12(4) of the Resettlement Act read with Schedule A Part II of the said Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the tenanted lands should not be taken into consideration as land in the holding of the landlord and remaining extent is less than 8 acres, the acquisition of the same is illegal and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State Government submitted that entire land of the landlord including the tenanted lands must be taken into consideration for the purpose of finding out whether the land is 8 acres or more.