DYANDEV PARSU CHAVAN Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226, the petitioners seek to challenge the acquisition of their lands admeasuring 30 ares from Gat No.539 situate at Village Koparde Haveli, Taluka Karad, District Satara, for resettlement of persons affected by Kanheri project. The principal challenge raised in the petition is that the proposed acquisition is contrary to the policy decision taken by the Government not to acquire the land if the holding is less than 8 acres. The petitioners are brothers. It is the case of the petitioners that there was a partition amongst them which is recorded in the village record by Mutation Entry No.367 dated 10th February, 1979. The petitioners claim that they never resided nor worked together for their livelihood, they had been residing and working separately for last several years. It is their specific case that on the date of Section 4 notification on 23rd June, 1985, they were holding the lands separately. In support of their case, the petitioners have produced voluminous evidence showing that the brothers are separate since 1979. The petitioners have relied upon a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.2276 of 1986 decided on 24th November, 1994 (Sampat Sitaram Chavan and others V/s The State of Maharashtra and others).

(2.) We have heard Mr.Mulla for the petitioners and Mr.D'Gama, learned A.G.P. for respondents. In our opinion, the evidence produced by the petitioners shows that the brothers are separate since 1979. Their respective holdings are far less than the economic holding of 8 acres. There is a mutation entry of the partition as far back as 1979. The lands are entered in separate khatas as per the partition. The evidence produced by the petitioners also shows that they are residing separately. In these circumstances, the Special Land Acquisition Officer clearly committed an error in treating the petitioners as a single unit for the purpose of deciding the slab. In similar facts, the Division Bench has set aside the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition No.2276 of 1986 . The State has chosen not to file affidavit in reply to the petition. In this view of the matter, petition is liable to be allowed. Rule is accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (d) to (g).