ANNA SHANKAR WALVEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the facts and the questions involved in both the writ petitions are common, they have been directed to be heard together. By this common Judgment, both the writ petitions are disposed of. By Writ Petition No. 5960 of 1988 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, dated 5th July 1988 whereby petitioners Execution Application was dismissed and he has also prayed for setting aside of the order passed by the State of Maharashtra dated 1st October, 1984 in its Urban Development Department and has prayed for restoration of the order dated 31st March, 1984 passed by the same department earlier. By Writ Petition No. 173 of 1989 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has again prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 1st October, 1984 and also prayed for quashing the communication dated 16th July, 1986 received from the said Department of the State of Maharashtra. From the above, it is apparent that even some of the reliefs prayed for are common.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of Revision Survey No. 633-B, Hissa No. 2a, admeasuring 71 Ares situated at Ichalkaranji. From the petitions following facts emerge :

(3.) NO affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. However, affidavits in both the writ petitions are filed on behalf of Wadgaon Agricultural Produce Market Committee, who is respondent No. 4 in both the petitions. From the said affidavits several facts not disclosed by the petitioners in both the petitions are brought on record. It is stated in the said affidavits that fresh notices under section 4 (1) of the said Act were issued after withdrawal of the said Appeal preferred by the State and that regular enquiry under section 5a of the said Act was also conducted. Objections of all the interested persons including the petitioner were heard and report to the Commissioner, Pune Division, was submitted for issuance of final Notification under section 6. Thus the Notification dated 16th August, 1979 happened to be published. Thereafter all further proceedings required to be taken under the said Act have been followed and an Award has been passed on 15th March, 1980. As far as the earlier acquisition is concerned, it is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner in fact had received full compensation on 18th July, 1974 although the same was accepted by the petitioner under protest. After the physical possession of the land in question was handed over to the 4th respondent on 28th March, 1980, they prepared a lay out plan which was sanctioned by the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Kolhapur on 18th March, 1981. The same was also sanctioned by Ichalkaranji Municipal Council on 26th March, 1981. Thereafter the 4th respondent has fully developed the entire land which was acquired, meaning thereby the whole of 16 acres and 24 gunthas including the land of the petitioner. The entire land has been fenced. It is divided into 66 plots. Internal roads are prepared and plantation of trees is completed. A pipeline has been laid down to provide water supply to various plots. A huge entrance is constructed along with its office building and shopping centre. Respondent No. 4 has also constructed places of residence for the agriculturists as also a huge water storage tank. As far as the 66 plots are concerned, they have been allotted to various parties like Banks, traders etc. under registered lease deeds each of 30 years duration. The possession of these various leased plots has already been handed over to the various lessees under their respective leases. The leases were entered into around 1983-84. One of the lessees viz. , Shetkari Sahakari Sangh has also constructed a huge godown by spending about two lacs of rupees. The construction was completed as far back as May, 1987. Dealing with the initial deletion from reservation, it is the grievance of the 4th respondent that the same was done behind the back of the 4th respondent as no hearing was given to them.