LOONKARAN ALIAS DHOORCHAND GANDHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Adv. Mr. Uday Dastane for the petitioner, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Mr. S.S. Doifode for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned Adv. Mr. S.K. Mishra for respondent No. 2.

(2.) By present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner land owner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare that the action of taking possession by the respondents of the land owned by him is illegal and without any authority of law. He has, in the alternative, sought compensation for said plot of land at the rate of Rs. 400-500/- per sq.ft., with commensurate damages on account of mental agony he suffered for last several years and third prayer in the alternative is to direct the respondents to allot him a plot of equal dimension in the vicinity with compensation for mental agony. The respondent No. 1 before is State of Maharashtra, while respondent No. 3 is its Officer working as a Special Land Acquisition Officer for Local Authority, i.e., respondent No. 2.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are: Petitioner is the legal heir of original petitioner Shri Loonkaran Gandhi, who expired during pendency of petition. Admittedly, deceased was the owner of Plot No. 8 admeasuring 9800 sq.ft. [corresponding to Khasra No. 35/8]. Said Khasra No. 35/8 forms part of Khasra No. 35 of Mouza Khamla, and is at Pande Layout, Taluka & Distt. Nagpur. The said plot has been taken in its possession by the respondent No. 2 - Nagpur Improvement Trust in 1970 for construction of a Public Road, popularly known as "West High Court Road." The stand of the petitioner is, this has been done illegally, because after Section 6 Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, no further steps to acquire said Plot No. 8 were, at any time, taken, and till this date, there is no Award for its acquisition, with the result the deceased petitioner or his legal heir have not received any compensation therefor. Though Nagpur Improvement Trust accepts that plot has been taken in possession in 1970 and the road has been constructed upon, Nagpur Improvement Trust contends that it had all the while insisted for passing of appropriate Award by the respondent No. 3, and respondent No. 3 did not pass the Award. According to it, therefore, it cannot be blamed in the matter.