LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-198

VITTHALDAS TRIBHUVANDAS BAGADIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On December 20, 2017
Vitthaldas Tribhuvandas Bagadia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of parties, the petition is heard forthwith.

(2.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the Notification dated 3rd July 2006 issued by the State of Maharashtra declaring the lands of the petitioners to be the Industrial Area and also impugning the orders passed by the respondents including the Notification under Section 32(2) dated 9th April 2007, under Section 32(1) dated 18th October 2007 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short "the said MID Act), the award made by the Collector dated 2nd February 2010 acquiring the lands of the petitioners and the notice seeking possession of the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners also seek that the acquisition proceedings and the award made by the Collector shall be quashed and set aside in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the said LARR Act, 2013). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that on 30th December 1981, the petitioners had purchased agricultural land admeasuring 35 acres, 36 gunthas comprised in Gat No.22 at Village Nagewadi, Taluka Jalna, District Jalna. The said land is located to the north of Aurangabad Jalna Road and abuts the said road. The respondent no.1 issued a notification sometime in the year 2003 acquiring certain lands in the Village Nagewadi. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.1, however, by its notification dated 24th March 2003, excluded several lands from the purview of acquisition notification without assigning any reasons. It is the case of the petitioners that the land of the petitioners was not comprised in the said acquisition.