RAGHUNATH BAJIRAO BORKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of proceedings for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act (the LA Act) for a public purpose-- construction of Ukali-Bori Road. Notification under section 4 of the LA Act specifying certain areas in certain fields was issued on 22nd June, 1982. Notification under section 6 was issued on 15th March, 1983. Notification under section 4 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 947 of 1983 before this Court on the grounds of mala fides and notification under section 6 on the ground of absence of hearing on objections. On 23rd August, 1983, the learned Government Pleader made a statement about withdrawal of notification under section 6. On the basis of that statement, the petition was withdrawn. Following is the gist of the order:

(2.) At, this stage, we may notice certain developments which took place between the date of withdrawal of the writ petition and issuance of second notification under section 6. For the very same public purpose, fresh notification under section 4 was issued on 1st April, 1984 for acquisition of additional lands. The areas in the two notifications do not overlap though some fields are common in both. No notification under section 6 in respect of the said properties is yet issued. It appears further that process of hearing on objections in this matter is even not complete.

(3.) Shri Dandige, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that no notice under section 9 for the property covered by notification under section 4 dated 1st April, 1984 could be issued nor can possession be taken unless notification under section 6 is issued in accordance with law. The contention is clearly correct. Shri Sambre, the learned Government Pleader, has fairly not disputed this position and states that if any such notices are, in fact, issued, they would be withdrawn and no possession would be taken unless valid notification under section 6 is issued. This controversy thus has only academic importance.