The case concerns a petition filed by Petitioner, now represented by his legal heir, Ashok Shantinath Chougule. The petitioner challenged the land acquisition of his property under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner's primary argument was that his land was wrongfully acquired for rehabilitation purposes under a miscalculated ceiling limit that included land mortgaged but not owned by him. The Divisional Commissioner of Pune had dismissed his application, stating that the land acquisition process was already completed. The High Court, however, acknowledged that possession of the land was not physically taken by the state, making the acquisition challengeable under Section 48(1).

1. Case Background and Initial Proceedings: The petition (under Article 226) was filed to contest the acquisition of the petitioner’s land by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, under a claim that exceeded the land ceiling limit. The petitioner argued that the calculation erroneously included land that was only mortgaged, not owned.

2. Prayers and Relief Sought: The petitioner sought to quash the acquisition and requested a stay on further proceedings affecting his land. The petitioner also offered an alternate land plot to meet the state’s requirements.

3. Acquisition Background and Dispute: The petitioner claimed that on the notified acquisition date, his total landholding was within legal limits and that land acquired beyond this limit was due to an error by including a separate mortgaged property.

4. Legal Issue Regarding Possession: The petitioner retained physical possession of the land in question, which led him to argue that the state had not fulfilled the criteria for finalizing the acquisition.

5. Petitioner's Offer of Alternative Land: In response to the acquisition, the petitioner also offered alternative land for acquisition, which the state did not consider.

6. Respondents’ Arguments: The state and respondents argued that the petitioner’s father's lack of objection to the acquisition indicated consent and that the acquisition process was legally binding due to this silence. However, they could not provide evidence of formal possession transfer.

Relevant Acts and Sections:

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 6, and 48(1)
• Constitution of India: Article 226

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio of the case lies in the interpretation of Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which allows a property owner to challenge the acquisition if the physical possession of the land remains with the owner, even after the acquisition award. Since possession was not taken, the acquisition process was deemed incomplete.

Subjects:

Land Acquisition – Rehabilitation – Possession Rights – Excess Land Calculation – Mortgage Exclusion in Ceiling Limit