SUKUMAR M KHOT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, published in the Gazette on 23rd June 2005 is challenged in these proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution. The acquisition is for the benefit of Sadashivrao mandalik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. , a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative societies' Act, 1960, the Fourth Respondent to these proceedings. The principal ground of challenge which was urged at the hearing is founded on the provisions of Section 5a, the challenge being that the Collector has neither prepared a report, nor submitted his recommendations as required by the mandate of the statute. After the records of the acquisition proceedings were produced before us by the Advocate General, we found that in the enquiry under section 5a, the Fourth Respondent for whom the land is being acquired, submitted a chart containing its responses to the objections filed by the Petitioners. The principal objection that is emphasised is that the Co-operative Sugar Factory already has substantial land in its possession upon which a factory building and ancillary facilities have been created. Hence, the objection was that the lands which are being acquired are far in excess of the legitimate requirements of the Fourth Respondent. A perusal of the record has revealed that the Collector did not prepare any independent report of his own, nor did he submit any recommendations to the State Government as required by Section 5a. The Collector merely acknowledged the chart prepared and submitted by the Fourth Respondent containing the responses of the Fourth Respondent to the objections of the agriculturists whose lands are to be acquired. Based on the settled position in law laid down in judgments of the Supreme Court, the most recent of them being the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai, AIR 2005 SC 3520 , we have concluded that there is a clear want of compliance with the mandate of Section 5a. Hence, the declaration under Section 6 will have to be set aside and the proceedings remanded back to the Competent Authority to conclude the enquiry under Section 5a in accordance with law upon which an appropriate decision can be taken by the State Government. We have, however, not accepted the contention of the Petitioners that the notification under Section 4 should be set aside since having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is necessary only to set aside the declaration under Section 6 and to remit the matter.

(2.) By the acquisition proceedings which have been impugned before the Court by 74 agriculturists, lands admeasuring 54 Hectares and 16.30 Ares are sought to be acquired for the benefit of the Fourth Respondent from the villages of Hamidwada, khadakewada and Kaulge in the Taluka of Kagal, in the District of kolhapur. The Fourth Respondent is a sugar factory registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies' Act, 1960, to whom an industrial licence for the manufacture of crystal white sugar was issued by the Government of India under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1961. The Commissioner of sugar approved the selection of the site on 8th August 1996. An application for acquisition is stated to have been moved by the fourth Respondent before the State Government.

(3.) On 19th September 2003, an agreement was executed between the Fourth Respondent and the State Government, in pursuance of an application moved by the former for acquisition, under the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 for the purpose of erecting the Karkhana, for its allied purposes and to provide amenities to the shareholders and workers. The agreement recites that the State Government, on enquiry being made in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, had granted its consent to acquisition.