RAMESH DAULATRAO PACHGHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) THE Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the instant case, after the notification under section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act is published, the petitioners have taken objections to the acquisition of land. It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the owners of Survey No. 28/1, admeasuring 2. 58 hectare. Petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 6 8s 7 are the owners of Survey No. 28/2, admeasuring 3. 26 hectare. Petitioner No. 8 is the owner of Survey No. 30/3-A, admeasuring 1. 49 hectare. Petitioner Nos. 9, 10, 11 8s 12 are the owners of Survey No. 33/4, admeasuring 1. 88 hectare and petitioner Nos. 13, 14 8s 15 are the owners of Survey No. 34/1, admeasuring 1. 27 hectare. All these lands are situated at village Palaswada. It is contended that the owners of these survey numbers have submitted separate objections in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the objections were raised on the ground of suitability of land, nature of land under acquisition, convenience of the people of the village etc. It is contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer without following the principles of natural justice prepared the report under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act in spite of the objections submitted by the petitioners. Since the report under section 5-A of the Act is violative of principles of natural justice, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing present writ petition challenging the procedure adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as validity of the report prepared by special Land Acquisition Officer under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) MR. Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further contended that in the instant case on 24-4-1998 this Court by interim order granted temporary injunction prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands referred to herein above, and therefore, section 6 notification could not be issued by the Special Land acquisition Officer since the land acquisition proceedings are stayed. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the report prepared by the Special Land acquisition Officer under section 5-A is dehors of the rules of natural justice, the same may be quashed and set aside. The Special land Acquisition Officer may be directed to reconsider the objections already submitted by the petitioners afresh in respect of the land acquisition proceedings and to take decision according to law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.