DRAUPADABI BALKRISHNA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenge the legality and validity of the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in May 1972, in so far as the said notification relates to 12 acres to and 7 gunthas out of S. No. 85/1 (Gat No. 185) situated at village Karajgaon in Ahmednagar district. The petitioners also challenge acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the said notification.

(2.) MR. Sali, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, contended that the impugned notification and the acquisition proceedings were illegal and bad and were also in violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Articles 14 of the Constitution. He further contended that the acquisition was bad also on the ground that it was not for a public purpose. He also criticised the slab system applied to the petitioners contending that the same was irrational and in violation of the principle of equality. It is not possible to accept these contentions. Similar and identical contention were already raised before another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sadashiv v. State, and the Division Bench has exhaustively considered the aforesaid contentions and negatived the same. We are in full agreement with the said decision. Respectfully following the same, we held that there is no merit in the contentions aforesaid raised by Mr. Sali in the present case. The same are, therefore, rejected.

(3.) MR. Sali next contended that even accepting the slab system as legal and valid and enforceable in the present case, even so the petitioners are entitled to succeed, inasmuch as the respondents are not entitled to deprive the petitioners or any of them of any part of the holding. Considering the record of the case and the partition amongst the petitioners and the civil suit and the decree passed therein as also the subsequent mutation entry effected by the officers of the State government, we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned advocate. Here is a case where long prior to the notification under section 4, there had already been filed Civil Suit No. 404 of 1971 by bhanudas Balkrishna, petitioner No. 3 herein, against the other petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, He was,, for partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family lands which included the present disputed land. The said suit was ultimately decreed by the Civil Court on 30th April, 1971, also long prior to the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of the said decree, the revenue officers of the State Government also effected mutation entry No. 208 in the revenue records. The decree was given effect to also in the revenue records.