ARVIND SADASHIV BELE Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arising under Article 226 seeks to challenge the acquisition of the petitioner's property admeasuring 11.6 sq.mtrs. out of city survey Nos.53 and 59 situate at main road, Nasik. Briefly, the facts are that a development plan for Nasik city was published some time in 1959. In this plan the petitioner's property being 11.6 sq.mtrs. out of city survey Nos.53 and 59 is shown reserved for road widening. On 8th October, 1978 the Commissioner, Bombay Division issued notification in exercise of the powers conferred under section 126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act" for short) and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act ("Act" for short) which was published in the official gazette on 18th January, 1979 and came into force on 1st June, 1979. Thereafter notice was issued under section 9(3) of the Act inviting objections from the owner. It is an admitted position that the notice under section 9(3) was issued in the name of the petitioner's father Sadashiv Bele, who had died long before the issuance of the notice. It seems that the said property originally stood in the name of Raghunath Bele the grandfather of the petitioner, Raghunath died some time in 1939 and thereafter the name of Sadashiv Bele was entered in the city survey extract. Sadashiv expired on 17th July, 1977. Thereafter the petitioner and other heirs of deceased Sadashiv made application to the city survey office for entering the names of the heirs in the city survey record. It is the case of the petitioner that the application was granted before notice under section 9(3) was issued. On the other hand, the Government contends that the names of the heirs were not entered when the proceedings were initiated by the authorities. It appears that notice in respect of one of the properties, issued in the name of Sadashiv, was in fact served upon the petitioner. The petitioner applied for two months' time to submit his objections. The authorities, however, informed that the petitioner will have to prefer the objections within the stipulated period. There is no dispute that no objections were filed by the petitioner or any other heir. The award was made on 21st July, 1986. Notice under section 12(2) was issued on 11th August, 1986 and the same was served on the petitioner on 9th September, 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 challenging the acquisition proceedings and the award passed in those proceedings.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Joshi for the petitioner and Shri D'Gama, learned AGP for the respondents. Shri Joshi firstly contends that the declaration issued under section 126(2) of the MRTP Act read with section 6 of the Act beyond three years is contrary to section 126. The contention of Shri Joshi will have to be rejected in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shiorani Shriram Jaiswal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1994 Mh.L.J. 1821). The Full Bench held that a declaration issued after the lapse of three years is valid although the owner will be entitled to compensation as on the date of the notification. It was held by the Full Bench that the application of provisions of section 126(4) are not restricted only in respect of draft regional plan, development plan or any other plan published before 17th February, 1971 when the Amending Act came in to force. The decision of the Full Bench has been approved by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh & Ors. {1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 793}.

(3.) IN the result, petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.