YESHWANT TUKARAM RAUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a resident of Virar and survey number 264/a/33 of village Virar is owned by the petitioner having 1/3rd share in the said land and 2/3rd belonging to the petitioners deceased uncle Bhaskar Nana and after his death the sons of said Bhaskar Raut. Survey No. 264/a/1 of village Virar, Taluka Vasai, Dist. Thane admeasures about 25 gunthas and there is a well in the land. The said land belongs jointly to 15 persons including the petitioner. Survey No. 264/a/36 of village Virar admeasuring 1? gunthas belongs to Haribhau Govind Vartak and five others. Petitioner claims to be in possession of this land as a tenant. Ultimately tenancy proceedings were commenced and by an order dated 26-9-1985 passed by the Competent Authority the petitioner was declared to be tenant of the said land. All these lands are being acquired for a proposed State Road Transport Bus Stand. The petitioner submitted that he was served with a notice dated 9-11-1983 informing that Survey Nos. 264/a/33 and 264/a/1 are intended to be acquired for a public purpose viz. for construction of S. T. bus stand. The petitioner was invited to submit objections, if any. The petitioner says that along with other persons affected, he submitted his objections. The objections broadly were that Survey No. 266 which belongs to Haribhau Vartak is specifically reserved for the purpose of construction of S. T. bus stand and the same ought to have been acquired and the petitioner and other small land holders like him should not be deprived of the lands which are bagayat lands. It was further pleaded that the schools which are situate nearby these plots will also be demolished and great hardship and inconvenience will be caused not only to the petitioner but also the villagers in general. It was contended that S. T. Corporation has already acquired Survey No. 290 for the purpose of construction of S. T. stand and there is no necessity of acquiring another land. The petitioner has stated that he was expecting a hearing to be given. However, no hearing under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was given to him. It is the contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the acquisition when on 23rd October, 1985 notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was served on him. The petitioner has further stated that though he is a tenant in respect of Survey No. 264/a/36 of village Virar, no notice either under section 4 (1) or section 6 or section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was ever served on him. It is further contended by the petitioner that under the Town Planning Scheme, Survey No. 290 having an area of about 25000 sq. mts. has been shown as reserved for the purpose of construction of S. T. bus stand. According to the petitioner, Survey No. 290 is abutting Agashi-Virar Road. The said road is more than 60 in width. The petitioner has further stated that State Government has also reserved Survey No. 266 as alternate plot for construction of S. T. bus stand. Said Survey No. 266 belongs to Haribhau Vartak and others. According to the petitioner, Haribhau Vartak is an influential political leader and has been a Minister for a long period and in order to favour said Vartak, respondent No. 1 i. e. the State has modified the development plan and released Survey No. 266 from the reservation. It is alleged that releasing the Survey No. 266 and issuing notification under section 4 under the Act for the purpose of acquiring the lands of the petitioner and others is illegal. The petitioner has annexed a map to the petition and referring to the map it is stated that there is a narrow road of about 10 width abutting the land belonging to the petitioner and this road of 10 is not at all suitable for the purpose of running the traffic of the buses. It is further alleged that in Survey No. 264/a/1 there is a well. The well is considerably big and even for filling the well and making the road through it expenses will be more than Rs. 10 lakhs. It is reiterated that abutting the road there are Hindi and Gujarati schools. For all these reasons it is asserted that the acquisition of the suit land is not only inconvenient for the purpose of construction of S. T. bus stand but it is also mala fide and has been done with the sole intention to favour Shri Vartak. For all these reasons it is prayed that the acquisition proceedings including the notifications under sections 4 (1) and 6 and notices under section 9 be quashed.

(2.) AFFIDAVIT in reply has been filed initially by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is pointed out that notification under section 4 was issued on 11-10-1983 and published on 27th October, 1983 in respect of several lands including the lands which are subject matter of this petition. Notices under section 4 (1) were served on the interested persons between 22nd to 24th November, 1983 and enquiry under section 5-A was held on 29th November, 1983, that the objections of the interested persons were duly considered. Thereafter, after the publication of the notification under section 6, notice under section 9 of the Act was published on 4-11-85 and individual notices were also given on the very day. It is relevant to notice that it is asserted that the petitioner appeared before the authority on 8-11-85 and as per his application the date was extended to 25-11-85. It is stated in the affidavit that in the revenue records Survey No. 264/a/36 of village Virar does not show the name of the petitioner and it is for this reason there is no question of serving any notice on the petitioner.

(3.) AFFIDAVIT is also filed on behalf of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (M. S. R. T. C.) for whom the lands are being acquired for construction of bus stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the acquisition is for a public purpose of State Transport Bus Stand nearby Virar Railway Station. It is asserted that the lands acquired are more suitable for the purpose. It is pointed out in the affidavit that though initially survey Nos. 290 and 266 were shown as reserved for S. T. bus stand under development plan subsequently the present site has been reserved by the Government in the development plan of 1980 for the purpose of S. T. stand. It is categorically stated that the portion on which well is situate is not at all under acquisition. Similarly there is no school building which is included in the acquired lands, the fear of demolition of which is expressed by the petitioner. It is denied that Survey No. 290 is already acquired by the M. S. R. C. The affidavit categorically asserts that the lands proposed in the earlier development plan were not suitable for the purpose of the Transport Corporation as the lands were away and without proper access. Besides that there were large number of semi permanent structures in Survey No. 290 and for Survey No. 266 there is no approach road and it is for these reasons that the said survey numbers were deleted in the subsequent development plan of 1980. It is stated that moreover the Passenger Association also pressed for the present site as more suitable. It is asserted that the present land being nearer to the Virar Railway Station having an access of village panchayat road adjoining to the main road are more suitable for the purpose of acquisition. The allegation that the present acquisition is to favour Mr. Vartak is denied. It is stated in the affidavit that the possession of the adjoining land bearing Survey No. 264-A/22, 264-A/34, 264-A/35 and 263-A/1. Part are already taken over by the Corporation on 3-3-1987 and only because of the proceedings taken out by the petitioner the work of construction of S. T. Bus stand is held up. It is asserted that completion of S. T. Bus stand is a dire need for the public purpose. It is also contended that the other co-owners having 2/3rd share are not impleaded nor Shri Haribhau Vartak of whom the petitioner claims to be tenant in respect of Survey No. 264/a/33. It is reiterated that there is no road to enter Survey No. 266 (Part) and there are semi permanent structures and a Hanuman temple on the land of Survey No. 290. These plots are not at all suitable for the purpose of construction and from traffic point of view. It is categorically stated that there is no possibility of demolition of the school as apprehended by the petitioners.