URMILA ASHOKRAO YADAO Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of resettlement of project displaced persons.

(2.) THE petitioner, according to her, is the owner of land bearing Gat No.6, admeasuring 2 hectares 15 Ares. Acquisition proceedings were initiated originally under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Acts 1976 (Resettlement Act for short) and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 11 Notifi-cation under the Resettlement Act was publish-ed on 2nd November 1978. Section 4 Notice under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 13th August 1984. The petitioner lodged her objection on 28th October 1984 and on 4th September 1986 Section 6 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published. This acquisition was for rehabilitating Dudhaganga Project affected Persons and the area which was acquired was 2 Hectares 14 Ares. Being aggrieved by the said acquisition, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) MR .Sonawane, the learned A.G.P. submit-ted firstly that the said Revenue Entry relied upon by the petitioner is nothing else but an 'Annewari' reflecting only the shares of persons and cannot be treated as any record of any partition having taken place between the persons whose names are shown in the said Entry. Mr.Sonawane further relied an unrep-orted decision of this Court dated 9th November 1994 wherein it has been inter alia held that merely because there are separate Annewaris indicated in the revenue records, it does not mean that it indicates the partition by metes and boundstand that at the most it reflected only a family arrangement which cannot constitute a partition. He further relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shivgonda Balgonda Patil vs. Director of Resettlement, reported in A.I.R. 1992 Bom.72 wherein the Division Bench has held as follows :