SUDHIR KEWALCHAND VORA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith, Mr. D. N. Kukday, Government Pleader waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard the counsel by consent finally at this stage.

(2.) A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 3-11-1992 issued by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur was published in the Official Gazette on 26-11-1992, specifying the lands mentioned in schedule including land comprising of Survey No. 59, admeasuring 1 hector and 56 Rs. stating therein that the land mentioned was needed or likely to be needed for the public purpose, viz. research and development area of the Defence Department. It was further stated in the notification that the Government of India by notification dated 23-4-1996 issued under Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution of India, has empowered the Divisional Commissioners in the State of Maharashtra, to discharge the functions of the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to acquisition of the land for the purposes of Union within the territories of the State. In the notification, it was mentioned that the Commissioner was of opinion that the said land was urgently necessary to be acquired and accordingly, directed acquisition of the said land under sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and provision of section 5-A of the said Act was dispensed with. By the said notification, the Commissioner was satisfied that the said land was needed for the aforesaid public purpose and a notification to that effect under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would be published in the Government Gazette. The Commissioner appointed Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Nagpur to perform the functions of Collector under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said Act. Thereafter on 7-1-1993, notification was published under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was declared that the said land was required for the aforesaid public purpose, viz. for the purpose of research and development area of the Defence Department. In the notification under section 6, in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of section 17, it was directed that the Collector on expiration of 15 days from the publication of notice relating to the aforesaid land under sub-section (1) of section 9, shall take possession of the lands specified which, as aforesaid, included the land comprising of Survey No. 59 admeasuring 1. 56 HR situated at Mouza Mohgaon, Tahsil and District Nagpur. It is further borne out from the record that a notice under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and the persons interested in the land viz. the present petitioners were called upon to appear personally or by agent on 18th March, 1993 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Nagpur to state nature of their interest in the land and particulars of their claim for compensation. It was made clear in that notice under section 9 that possession will be taken within 15 days from the publication of that notice. By this writ petition, the petitioners pray for quashing of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3-11-1992 published in the Official Gazette on 26-11-1992 and for declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings relating to the aforesaid land were void and liable to be dropped.

(3.) MR. V. C. Daga, the learned Counsel for petitioners strenuously urged that the acquisition proceedings were bad in law and there was no justification for invoking urgency clause under sub-section (4) of section 17 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Counsel submitted that though the notification under section 4 was issued on 3-11-1992 and published in the Official Gazette on 26-11-1992 and notification under section 6 was also published on 7-1-1993, but the offer of 80 per cent amount of estimated compensation was made for the first time in the month of February 1994 when the objection to the acquisition was raised by the petitioners and according to him that showed that there was no urgency. The learned Counsel for petitioners, thus, submitted that the valuable right of the petitioners under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act has been unjustifiably taken away and that vitiated the entire acquisition proceedings. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in (The State of Punjab and another v. Gurdial Singh and others) A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 319. On behalf of the respondent No. 2 submissions have been filed and it has been pointed out that the land in question along with other land was needed for the public purpose, viz. research and development area for Defence Department and since there was no Government land in the vicinity, the land in question was sought to be acquired for the said purpose. It is further stated in the submissions that the land of others has also been acquired for the said purpose and owners of those lands have been paid compensation in advance and the petitioners were also asked to accept 80% of the compensation on 23-2-1994, but they sought time and on 30th March, 1994, again they were offered compensation, but they refused to accept. In this background, the respondents have urged that the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.