Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Land Acquisition for Rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons. Notification under Section 11 of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 upheld as valid.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 106
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Shri Balshiram Khandu Pawale and Shri Baban Khandu Pawale, residents of Village Kalus, Taluka Khed, District Pune, filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.22, Pune. The acquisition was for the rehabilitation of project affected persons under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The petitioners challenged the Notification under Section 4 dated 24/09/1997, the declaration under Sections 6 and 17 dated 02/06/1998, and the award dated 31/03/2000 passed pursuant to the declaration. They also challenged the order dated 14/08/2002 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Pune on their representation. The court considered the brief facts and the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, Mr. U.B. Nighat. The respondents were not represented. The court, after hearing the petitioners, found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition. The court held that the acquisition proceedings were valid and the notification under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 was properly issued. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons - Validity of Notification under Section 11 of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 - Petitioners challenged acquisition of their land for rehabilitation of project affected persons - Court held that the notification and declaration were valid and the petition was dismissed - Held that the acquisition was for a public purpose and the procedure was followed (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 are valid and whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Land Acquisition
  • Rehabilitation of Project Affected Persons
  • Validity of Notification under Section 11 of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act
  • 1986
  • Challenge to Acquisition Proceedings
  • Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 209

WRIT PETITION NO. 5605 OF 2002

2005-08-17

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, V.M. Kanade

Mr. U.B. Nighat for the petitioners

Shri Balshiram Khandu Pawale and Shri Baban Khandu Pawale

Special Land Acquisition Officer No.22, District Resettlement Officer, Divisional Commissioner, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to land acquisition proceedings for rehabilitation of project affected persons.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash the Notification under Section 4 dated 24/09/1997, declaration under Sections 6 and 17 dated 02/06/1998, award dated 31/03/2000, and order dated 14/08/2002 of the Divisional Commissioner.

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged that the acquisition proceedings were invalid and not in accordance with law.

Previous Decisions

The Divisional Commissioner rejected the petitioners' representation by order dated 14/08/2002.

Issues

Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 are valid.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the acquisition proceedings were invalid and not in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the acquisition proceedings were valid and the notification under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 was properly issued. The petition was dismissed as without merit.

Judgment Excerpts

By this Petition, petitioners are challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by issuing Notification under section 4 dated 24/09/1997 and declaration dated 02/06/1998 issued under sections 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award dated 31/03/2000 which was passed pursuant to the said declaration dated 02/06/1998. Petitioners are also challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Pune dated 14/08/2002 on the representation made by the petitioners in respect of the land which was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

Procedural History

The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued Notification under Section 4 dated 24/09/1997 and declaration under Sections 6 and 17 dated 02/06/1998. Award was passed on 31/03/2000. Petitioners made a representation to the Divisional Commissioner which was rejected on 14/08/2002. Petitioners then filed the present Writ Petition on an unspecified date.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 6, Section 17
  • Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986: Section 11
  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Passport Renewal Petition Subject to Trial Court Order — Right to Travel Abroad is a Fundamental Right. Petitioner's passport renewal cannot be denied solely due to pending criminal case; trial court to decide within three ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Testamentary Suit for Letters of Administration; Will Not Validly Executed Due to Suspicious Circumstances and Undue Influence. Holograph Will Dated 20 March 1980 Not Proved Under Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; P...