SHARAD MUKUNDA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 9 petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against the acquisition by the respondents of the several lands owned by the petitioners under the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and they may conveniently by taken up for decision together.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 1006 to 1009 a notification dated 11-3-1977 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 17-7-1977. The notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30-11-1979, but earlier a declaration under section 11 of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (Resettlement Act for short) came to be made on 14-2-1978. In Writ Petition No. 1677, 1836, 1860 and 1877 of 1980 the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was dated 19-5-1977 was published on 30-6-1977 while declaration under section 11 of the Resettlement Act was issued on 24-11-1978 and the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23-6-1980. Since only two questions have been canvassed before us, it is not necessary to give the detailed description of the lands involved and the details of contentions raised in the petitions and the answers thereto in the return.

(3.) THE first contention on behalf of the petitioners is that since after the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the declaration under section 11 (1) of the Resettlement Act, came to be made, it was necessary for the respondents to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter III of the Resettlement Act and it was not open to acquire the land in pursuance of section 16 of the Resettlement Act, unless the final notification under section 15 of the Act was made. On the other hand the contention on behalf of the respondents was that since the legal proceedings came to be initiated for acquisition by resorting to section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, merely because the notification under section 11 (1) was issued, it was not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed by the Resettlement Act and the modalities prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act could be followed and it was not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter III of the Resettlement Act. Further the contention on behalf of the respondents was that even if it were necessary to follow that procedure, the requirements of sections 13 to 15 of the Resettlement Act had been followed and the acquisition cannot be questioned.