Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, 23 agriculturists from villages in Nanded district, filed a common Civil Revision Application challenging the acquisition of their lands by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act (MIDC Act). The lands were situated in villages Kushnoor, Ghungrala, and Saverkheda. The petitioners contended that a notification under Section 32(1) and (2) of the MIDC Act was published in the official Gazette on 20.12.1993 and 23.12.1993, but they were not made aware of the acquisition proceedings. They alleged that no notice under Section 32(2) was served upon them, and they were not given any opportunity of hearing before the declaration under Section 32(1) was made. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, the Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, and MIDC, opposed the petition. The court examined the record and found that there was no evidence of service of notice under Section 32(2) upon the petitioners. The court held that the notice under Section 32(2) is mandatory and must be served on persons interested in the land. The failure to issue such notice and grant an opportunity of hearing vitiated the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the court allowed the Civil Revision Application, quashed and set aside the acquisition proceedings, and directed the respondents to restore possession of the lands to the petitioners if already taken. The court also directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving them an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - MIDC Act - Notice under Section 32(2) - Opportunity of Hearing - The petitioners, agriculturists, challenged the acquisition of their lands by MIDC on the ground that no notice under Section 32(2) of the MIDC Act was served upon them and they were not given an opportunity of hearing before the declaration under Section 32(1) was made. The court held that the failure to issue notice and grant hearing vitiates the acquisition proceedings, and the petitioners are entitled to be heard before their lands are acquired. (Paras 1-5) B) Land Acquisition - MIDC Act - Section 32(2) Notice - Mandatory Requirement - The court observed that the notice under Section 32(2) of the MIDC Act is mandatory and must be served on the persons interested in the land. The record did not show any such notice, and the respondents could not produce evidence of service. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings were quashed and set aside. (Paras 4-5) C) Land Acquisition - MIDC Act - Section 32(1) Declaration - Validity - The declaration under Section 32(1) of the MIDC Act was made without complying with the mandatory requirement of notice under Section 32(2). The court held that such a declaration is invalid and cannot be sustained. The petitioners' lands were directed to be restored to them. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land acquisition proceedings under the MIDC Act are vitiated for want of notice under Section 32(2) and failure to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners' lands are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore possession of the lands to the petitioners if already taken. The respondents are at liberty to consider the petitioners' objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving them an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to hearing
- Land acquisition
- Notice under Section 32(2) MIDC Act
- Opportunity of hearing
- Quashing of acquisition proceedings
