PRABHAWATI JAGANNATH THAKAR Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks a direction against respondent nos. 1 to 4 to take necessary steps to acquire lands bearing Survey Nos. 3 and 4 situate at village kopare and land bearing Survey No. 19 of Village Shivane under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have also prayed in the alternative that if the lands have been acquired already, then the compensation should be paid to the petitioners at the rates prevailing today. The petitioners have also prayed that in the event the respondent No. 6 does not require the lands for the purpose for which they were requisitioned initially, the lands should be de-requisitioned and handed over to the petitioners.

(2.) THE aforesaid lands were owned by the original petitioner's husband Dr. Jagannath Thakar. He died on 14. 11. 1986. The petition was filed in 1997 by the original petitioner. She expired during the pendency of this writ petition and the heirs of Dr. Jagannath Thakar and the original petitioner have been brought on record as petitioners 1a to 1g.

(3.) ON 25. 4. 1942 the aforesaid lands were requisitioned by the Collector of Pune under rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules framed under the Defence of India Act. These lands continued under requisition till they were acquired by an order in the year 1951. The Collector of Pune, by his award dated 14. 2. 1955 awarded compensation for the aforesaid lands to the owner i. e. Dr. Jagannath Thakar. No grievance was made about the compensation or the acquisition till the filing of the present petition in the year 1997. It is the contention of the petitioners that the lands have not in fact been acquired since the acquisition is non est. According to the petitioners, the government could not acquire the lands under the requisitioned Lands (Continuance of Powers)Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "act 17 of 1947")in view of the provisions of section 5 of the Act 17 of 1947. This Act was later amended. According to the petitioners, the provisions of Act 17 of 1947 were no longer applicable from 1. 4. 1951 in view of the Amendment Act 9 of 1951 which came into effect prior to the notification for acquisition dated 6. 9. 1951. The petitioners therefore contend that the notice published by the Collector of Pune is void ab initio as it was issued under Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of Act 17 of 1947 as amended by Act 9 of 1951. This contention is based on the premise that the lands were situate in the province of Bombay and Act 17 of 1947 had ceased to apply to such lands from 1. 4. 1951. Besides, these lands could not be considered to be subject to requisition under the authority of the Central Government since they were requisitioned by the Collector under the provisions of the Defence of India Rules. It is contended that since the entire acquisition is void ab initio, the lands must be deemed to have continued under requisition. A contention is then raised that since it is well settled that requisition of lands cannot be permitted to be continued in indeterminately, the lands must be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (H. D. Bora Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.), reported in 984 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)239 : 1984 dgls 51 (soft) : 1984 (2) S. C. C. 337 : A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 866 and in the case of (M/s. T. N. K. Govindaraju Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax), reported in 1967 DGLS 140 (soft) : A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 129.