MOHMADBHAI S O MIYABHAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 905/86 : The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the owner of lands located in survey Nos. 16, 17 and 91 of village Mukundwadi, taluka and district Aurangabad. The Government of Maharashtra issued notifications on 30th October, 1972, 3rd February, 1973 and 4th May, 1973 under section 40 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the M. R. T. P. Act for short) and constituted and appointed City and Industrial Development Corporation of maharashtra as a Special Planning Authority for the development of Aurangabad Notified Area specified in the schedule which included the land of the petitioner. On 24-5-1973 the Special Planning Authority issued a Notification under section 126 and reserved, allotted and designated the area including the lands of the petitioner and prepared a development Plan. On 16th October, 1975 the Planning authority modified the Development Plan of 1973 and published a final notification under section 126 (2) of the m. R. T. P. Act and in the schedule thereof lands in survey No. 16 admeasuring 8 H and 17 R, Survey No. 17 (PT) admeasuring 8 h and 29 R and Survey No. 91 admeasuring 5 H and 26 R were sought to be acquired. It is pertinent to note at this stage that by Government Notification dated 30th August, 1971 issued under section 151 (1) of the M. R. T. P. Act, the powers exercisable by the State Government under sub-sections (2)and (4) of section 126 of the M. R. T. P. Act were delegated to the Commissioners of the divisions and, therefore, the final notification under section 126 (2) dated 16th October, 1975 came to be published by the Divisional Commissioner at aurangabad. The corrigendum to the said notification was issued by the competent authority and the same has been published in the Government Gazette dated 9-9-1976 wherein it has been shown that the area sought to be acquired from survey No. 17 PT was reduced from 8 H and 29 R to 8 H and 3 r.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 was issued notice under section 9 (3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-9-1976. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 alienated part of the land under acquisition from S. No. 17 in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 i. e. by a sale deed dated 8-12-1980 in favour of the petitioner No. 3 and by another sale deed dated 11-12-1979 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 to the extent of 2 acres, 20 gunthas and 2 acres respectively. The petitioner No. 1 along with other owners whose lands were sought to be acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24th May, 1973, had filed objections for the said proposal. By the notification dated 16-10-1975 the Special land Acquisition Officer, CIDCO was vested with the powers of Collector for the purpose of acquisition of land mentioned in the schedule thereto. It appears that subsequently, by exercising powers under section 52a (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector has delegated powers in favour of the Land Acquisition Officer, Sharda Colony, aurangabad. The said Officer has thereafter, passed award in respect of the lands under acquisition on 23rd September, 1986.

(3.) THIS petition has been filed on 22nd September, 1986 and by an order dated 22-9-1986 this Court had granted interim stay of delivery of possession till 29-9-1986 and on 29-9-1986, the petition was admitted by vacating the order of interim relief. The petitioners have challenged the notification dated 16th October, 1975 and the notices issued under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. In addition, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of sections 125, 126, 128 and 129 of the M. R. T. P. Act. The challenge to the Constitutional validity of sections 125, 126, 128 and 129 has not been seriously pressed and the arguments have been mainly advanced in respect of the first prayer namely quashing of the notification dated 16th october, 1975 and the notices issued under section 9 of the land Acquisition Act.