SAHEBRAO BHAUSAHEB KALATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(3.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.9630 of 2017, whose landed property ad-measuring 27R out of Gat No.1 situated at Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune is subjected to acquisition proceedings, is praying for issuance of writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction for quashing and setting aside the Award dated 2nd June, 2017 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Unit No.2, Pimpri, Pune. Though the petitioner has prayed for issuance of declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of suit land have lapsed in view of failure to comply with the provisions of section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894") i.e. failure to pass an Award within a period of two years from the date of declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, said relief has not been pressed in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2011 3 SCC 1. The land belonging to the petitioner, which is subjected to acquisition proceedings is situated at Wakad within jurisdictional area of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claims to be owner of the land and is also stated to be in possession of the property. The petitioner submits that the said land is reserved under Reservation Site No.4/3 for the purpose of extension of the primary school in the final development plan prepared for Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of MRTP Act. During the first round of acquisition proceedings, the petitioner states that, on 15th April, 2010, taking recourse to the provisions of section 17 of the Act of 1894 and by application of urgency clause, the possession of the land was taken over illegally by the acquisition authorities. The petitioner objected to the action of taking over illegal possession by the acquisition authorities and presented Writ Petition No.8313 of 2010 in this Court. The petition came to be decided finally on 5th December, 2011. The Division Bench of this Court while directing quashment of the action of taking over possession by application of urgency clause under section 17 of the Act of 1894, directed the respondents to return back possession of the land to the petitioner. The possession of land under acquisition came to be handed over back to the petitioner on 30th December, 2011.