Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), acting as the New Town's Development Authority under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, sought to quash an order of the Minister for Revenue directing the withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings concerning Gat No. 124/1, Village Satara, Aurangabad. The dispute arose from a long-standing acquisition process initiated for the planned development of the New Aurangabad area. CIDCO had been appointed as Special Planning Authority in 1973 and after preparing a development plan, it requested the Collector to acquire lands including Gat No. 124/1. A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 126 of the MRTP Act was published in January 1987, and an award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14 December 1988. Respondent No. 7, Devendrasingh Mulsingh Jaggi, claimed an interest in the land and filed Writ Petition No. 377/1989 challenging the award. The High Court dismissed that petition on 26 July 2001, holding that the award had been validly made and that the petitioner's purchase of the land in 1980 and 1984 was illegal as per Supreme Court precedent. The court also noted that the original land owner had been given notice in 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition against that order. Despite the dismissal, before possession could be taken, respondent No. 7 moved an application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Minister for Revenue, claiming the land was no longer needed by CIDCO. Overruling CIDCO's objections, the Minister on 23 June 2004 ordered the acquisition proceedings to be dropped, and the Divisional Commissioner issued a notification to that effect on 20 July 2004. Aggrieved, CIDCO filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Minister had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 48 after the award had attained finality. The court admitted the petition on 7 March 2007 and directed maintenance of status quo regarding the property. During the pendency, the parties made detailed submissions: the petitioner argued that the acquisition proceedings had concluded with the award and that the respondent could not re-agitate the matter; the respondents opposed the petition on merits (though their full arguments are not recorded in the excerpt). The judgment was reserved on 22 August 2017 and pronounced on 6 October 2017, but the text of the final decision is not included in the provided excerpt. As such, the outcome remains undetermined in this summary.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue had jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to drop land acquisition proceedings after the passing of an award and after the dismissal of the land owner's writ petition challenging the acquisition.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 13
Writ Petition No. 6917 of 2004
R.D. Dhanuka, Sunil K. Kotwal
A.S. Bajaj (petitioner), A.R. Borulkar (AGP for respondent 1-5), M.D. Shinde (respondent 6), S.D. Kulkarni (respondent 7), S.V. Kshirsagar (holding for M.A. Deshpande for respondent 8)
City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), through its Administrator
State of Maharashtra through Secretary Revenue & Forest Department, Hon'ble Minister for Revenue & Forest, Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad, Collector Aurangabad, Special Land Acquisition Officer (Special Unit), Gram Panchayat Satara, Devendrasingh Mulsingh Jaggi, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public law litigation challenging administrative order dropping land acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the Minister’s order dated 23 June 2004 and the consequent notification dated 20 July 2004, thereby restoring the land acquisition proceedings for Gat No. 124/1.
Filing Reason
The Minister for Revenue allowed the land owner’s application under Section 48 to drop the acquisition on the ground that the land was no longer needed, despite the award having been passed and the land owner’s earlier court challenge having been dismissed.
Previous Decisions
In Writ Petition No. 377/1989, the Bombay High Court dismissed the land owner’s challenge to the acquisition award dated 14 December 1988 on 26 July 2001. The Special Leave Petition against that order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue has jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to drop land acquisition proceedings after an award has been passed and after the dismissal of the land owner’s writ petition challenging the acquisition.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that the acquisition proceedings stood concluded upon the passing of the award on 14 December 1988 and the subsequent dismissal of the land owner’s writ petition, thereby precluding any exercise of power under Section 48.
The petitioner argued that the land owner could not reagitate the validity of the acquisition after the writ petition was dismissed and the special leave petition was rejected.
The petitioner asserted that the land was still required for the planned development of the notified area and that the Minister’s order was arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
The petitioner emphasized that it had followed due procedure under the MRTP Act and the Land Acquisition Act, and that the land owner’s purchase of the land in 1980 and 1984 was illegal as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Umashankar Rajabhau.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court also observed that the final Award had been already passed on 14 th December, 1988 and the land acquisition proceedings stood concluded before the petitioner approached this Court in the said writ petition. (Para 10)
On 23 rd June, 2004 the learned Minister overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and directed to drop the acquisition proceeding in respect of the land in question... (Para 12)
This Court also observed that the original land owner was given a notice of hearing before the development plan was approved as far back as in the year 1973... (Para 10)
Procedural History
1) 1973: Petitioner appointed as Special Planning Authority under the MRTP Act. Draft development plan published. 2) 8 May 1985: Petitioner requested Collector to initiate acquisition. 3) 29 September 1986: Section 6 notification issued under Land Acquisition Act read with MRTP Act. 4) 1 January 1987: Notification published in Gazette and newspapers. 5) 14 December 1988: Award made by Special Land Acquisition Officer. 6) 20 January 1989: Respondent No. 7 filed Writ Petition No. 377/1989 challenging the award; interim stay granted. 7) 26 July 2001: High Court dismissed the writ petition; Special Leave Petition subsequently dismissed by Supreme Court. 8) After dismissal, SLAO issued notice for possession; respondent sought time. 9) Respondent No. 7 applied under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Minister for Revenue to drop the acquisition. 10) 23 June 2004: Minister allowed the application and directed dropping of acquisition. 11) 20 July 2004: Divisional Commissioner issued notification dropping acquisition for Gat No. 124/1. 12) CIDCO filed the present WP No. 6917/2004 challenging the Minister's order. 13) 5 November 2004: Respondent No. 7 made statement undertaking no third-party rights and to maintain status quo. 14) 7 March 2007: Petition admitted and status quo order continued. 15) 22 August 2017: Judgment reserved; 6 October 2017: Judgment pronounced.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227, 300A
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 6, 7, 9(3), 9(4), 48
- Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act: 113A, 40(1)(4), 40(3)(d), 126(4), 115
