HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL Vs. COLLECTOR OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) About 114 years after the enactment of a law which is very commonly enforced and consequently very often analysed-reanalysed as also interpreted-reinterpreted by various Courts in the country, including the Supreme Court, in this group of matters, we have an occasion, for the first time since its enactment, to interpret the provisions of Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") as also pronounce upon the true and correct scope thereof. In the submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of all the parties in this group of matters, neither any High Court nor the Supreme Court previously had an occasion to deal with such an issue.

(2.) The respondent herein, the Municipal Corporation of the city of Pune (hereinafter referred as the "said Corporation" for the sake of brevity) established under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (Hereinafter referred to as the BPMC Act for the sake of brevity) is said to have decided to set up what is titled as "Forest Garden" (in local language Marathi - ou&m|ku), comprising of 50 hectares of land, situate at Pachgaon, Mauze Parvati Pune. An award under Section 11 of the said Act has been declared, for acquiring the lands on which such "Forest Garden" is to be set up. This group of petition challenges the acquisition proceedings and in turn the award so made on 31st May, 2008 for acquiring survey Nos. 67 to 73.

(3.) Some of the Writ Petitions from this Group have been filed before declaration of the award, whereas some have been filed after the declaration of the award. In some petitions, admittedly possession is already obtained by the Land Acquisition Officers and has already been handed over to the said Corporation, whereas in some cases the possession is not so obtained, particularly in view of the interim orders passed by this Court preventing dispossession of such petitioners from the acquired sites. The factual details in this regard we will give little later. Hereunder we are setting out as usual first the chronology of events with some particulars. One of the defenses of the respondents to the Writ Petitions is that these petitions are filed with gross delay and latches and that on that ground itself, the same are liable to be dismissed.