Partly allowed

Laxman Nagar Co-Op Hsg. Soc.and Anr. v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2005WP/3808/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition partly, quashing the land acquisition award and supplementary award to the extent they related to a specific 700 sq.m plot. The court held that the proceedings were vitiated by delay beyond the statutory limitation, failure to verify land utility, and arbitrariness in claiming possession before a complete award.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned awards dated 23-9-1986 and 20-11-1986 only to the extent they relate to the plot admeasuring 700 sq.m in Survey No.15/2 (Part), CTS No.94 (Part).

Laxman Nagar Co-Op Hsg. Soc.and Anr. Vs State of Mah. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

[1]

¶2

	IN THE HIGH COURT OF	JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
	ORDINARY ORIGINAL WRIT PETITION	CIVIL JURISDICTION NO.3808 OF 1987
1.	Laxman	Nagar Co-operative
	Housing Society	Limited,
	a Society	registered under
	the provisions	of the
	Maharashtra	Co-operative
	Societies Act,	having its
	office at	"Sheetal Chhaya",
	Vazira Naka,	L.T. Marg,
	Borivli	(West),
	Bombay-400	092.
2.	R.P.	Shirambekar,
	of Bombay	Indian Inhabitant,
	residing at	"Sheetal Chhaya",
	Vazira Naka,	L.T. Marg,
	Borivli	(West),
	Bombay-400 092,	the
	Chairman of	the Petitioner
	No.1-Society.	.... Petitioners
	- Versus	-
1.	State	of Maharashtra
2.	The Special	Land Acquisition
	Officer (7),	Bombay and
	Bombay Suburban	District
	having his office	at 2nd
	floor, Shri	Chhatrapati
	Shivaji Market	Building,
	Paltan Road,	Bombay-400 001.
3.	Municipal	Corporation of
	Greater Bombay,	a statutory
	Corporation	constituted
	under the provisions	of the
	Bombay Municipal	Corporation
	Act, 1888, having	its office
	at Mahapalika	Marg,
	Bombay-400	001.
4.	Bombay Electric	Supply and
	Transport Undertaki	ng, an
	authority of	the Bombay
	Municipal Corporat	ion -
	Respondent No.3	herein,
	having office	at BEST
	Bhuvan, BEST	Marg,
	Bombay-400 039.	.... Respondents

¶3

[2]

¶4

Shri	Milind	Sathe	i/b	M/s.	Gh	anekar	&	Co.
for			the					Petitioners.
Ms	Mugdha	Jadha	v,	Asst.	G	overnm	ent	Pleader,
for	the	Resp	ondent		Nos.1		and	2.
Shri	Vinod	Mahadik	for		the	Res	pondent	No.3.
			CORAM:		R.M.S.	KHA	NDEPAR	KAR &
				V.M.		KA	NADE,	JJ.
			DATED:		AUG	UST	22,	2005
ORAL	JUDG	MENT	(Per		R.M.S.	Khandep	arkar,	J.):
1.	Heard.	Perused	the reco	rds.	The	pet	itioners	by the
present	petition	challenge	the	award	dat	ed	23-9-198	6 and
the	supplement	ary award	dated	20-1	1-1986	so	far	as they
relate	to	the petiti	oners’ p	lot	bearing	surv	ey	No.15/2
(Part),	CTS	No.94	(Part)	and	the	rec	onstituted	plot

¶5

No.409 on various grounds and therefore seek to quash

¶6

the said awards to that extent.

¶7

2.	Few facts relevan	t for the		decision	are	tha	t the
petitioner	No.1 is	a c	o-op	erative	ho	using	society
registered	under the	Maharas	htra	Co-o	perative		Housing
Societies	Act, 1960.	The		mem	bers	of	the
petitioner-so	ciety are the	employee	s	of	a		nationalised
bank,	namely the Bank	of	Mah	arashtra.		Under	the
development	plan issued	in terms		of th	e B	ombay	Regional
Town	Planning Act, 1954	in the	yea	r 1964	a	plot	of land
bearing	survey No.15,	hissa No.2		(Part)	and	CTS	No.94
was	reserved for housi	ng purposes	.	The	said	plot	was
purchased	by the p	etitioner-society		from	the		erstwhile

¶8

[3]

¶9

owners thereof under 8-5-1967. Prior to	t that,	he deed in the	of conveyance course of settlemen	dated t of
the transaction for	pur	chase of	the plot,	notice
inviting objection	for s	uch purchase	of the plot	was
published by the	petit	ioners in	the newspapers	on
11-4-1967. The	name	of the	petitioner-society was	duly
entered into conseq	uent	to the	mutation proceedings	in
the 7 x 12	extract	relating to	the records of	right
pertaining to the	said	plot conseq	uent to the	purchase
of the said plot.	Pursu	ant to the	purchase of the	plot,
the petitioners	applied	for p	ermission for con	struction
of the residential	build	ing in the	said plot and	such
permission was	issued	by the	Municipal Corporation	of
the Greater Bom	bay	in 1972.	The con	struction
commencement certificate	and	the IOD	were also issued	to
the petitioner-society	in	1972 and	were further	renewed
on 10-4-1974.	The	necessary	certificate for co	nversion
of the user of	the	land to	the non-agricultural	purpose
was granted to	the	petit	ioner-society by	the
Sub-Divisional Office	r u	nder his	order dated 14	-4-1975.
In order to enabl	e to	raise the	necessary funds for	the
purpose of cons	truction	of	the building,	the
petitioner-society obtained	lo	an from	the Bank	of
Maharashtra and acc	ordingly	executed	the deed	of
mortgage on 9-10-1975	in	favour	of the Bank	of
Maharashtra in relation	to	the said	plot. On co	mpletion
of the construction,	on	20-11	-1976 the oc	cupancy
certificate came	to	be issued	to the petitione	r-society

¶10

[4]

¶11

in respect of the building constructed in the said	plot
by the Corporation. Consequent to the grant of	such
occupancy certificate, the building came to be o	ccupied
by the members of the petitioner-society. Meanwhile,	on
24-4-1973 the respondent No.4 resolved to have the	land
from the village Borivli bearing survey No.12 (Part),	15
(Part) and 17 (Part) admeasuring 8700 sq.metres in	area
to be acquired for the purpose of housing accomm	odation
for the staff of the BEST. The proposal in that	regard
was submitted by the respondent No.4 to the res	pondent
No.1 for the purpose of acquisition of the said land	on
11-9-973. The Government forwarded the said proposal	to
the Commissioner, Bombay Division on 7-7-1973 and	the
latter submitted the proposal to the Ad	ditional
Collector on 19-7-1973 which was then forwarded to	the
Land Acquisition Officer on 21-7-1973. The measu	rements
of the land with the intervention of the respondent	No.4
were carried out in the month of September and No	vember
of 1973 and the Notification came to be issued	on
2-4-1974 under Section 126(1) of the Mah	arashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter	called
as "the said Act" read with Section 6 of the	Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 notifying certain land	for
acquisition including the land in question adme	asuring
700 sq.metres out of the survey No.15, hissa No.2	(Part)
CTS No.94 which culminated in the award passed 23-9-1986 and further stated to be addendum to the	on said

¶12

award on 20-11-1986, thereby acquiring the land in

¶13

[5]

¶14

question.

¶15

3.	It	is also	the	contention	of	the	petitioners and	not
disputed		by the	res	pondents		that	the M	unicipal
Corporation		by letter	dated	2-6-19	64	had	opined that	the
housing		reservation	cannot	be	rel	eased	but the	land
could	be	developed	for	co-operativ	e	housing	and that	the
Assistant		Director,	Town	Planni	ng	had	informed	the
Special		Land Acq	uisition	Officer	on	23-9-	1973 that	the
land	in	question	was	reserved	for	housing	in "R"	Ward

¶16

and the lands fell in the Town Planning Scheme, Borivli

¶17

III.

¶18

4.	It is	the	case of	the petitione	rs		that apart	from
the	fact that	the	declaration	under Sec	tion		126 of	the
said	Act was	is	sued beyond	the perio	d		within which	it
could	have been		issued in	terms of		t	he proviso	to
sub-section	(2)	of	the said	Section,	t	h	e public	purpose
which	was sought	to	be atta	ined was	a	l	ready satisfied	in
view	of the	utilisa	tion of t	he land	in		question for	the
housing	society	built	by the	employees			of a	public
undertaking	like	t	he nationali	sed bank			and further	that
the	award dated	2	0-11-1986 w	hich in	fact		concludes	the
acquisition	proceedin	gs	in term	s of Se	ction		11 of	the
Land	Acquisition	Act	was pa	ssed bey	ond		the m	aximum
period	prescribed	fo	r passing	of such	a		ward co	nsequent
to	the issuan	ce	of the no	tice under	Se	c	tion 126(2)	of
the sai	d Act rea	d	with Section	6 of	th	e	Land Ac	quisition

¶19

[6]

¶20

Act.		It	is	also	the	contenti	on of	the	petitioners	that
once	the	final		plot	is	allotte	d i	n t	erms of	the
provision	s	of	the	said	Act	and	the	said	plot having	not
been	forming	part	o	f the	rese	rved	area	as	such under	the
approved		scheme		under	the	said	Act,	unless	there	was
reconstitu	tion	of	the	plan	in	term	s of	the	provisions	of
the	said	Act,	the	land	could	not	have	been	sought to	be

¶21

acquired for the purposes which can be classified as

¶22

reserved purposes under the said Act.

¶23

5.	On	the	other	hand,	it is	the	con	tention of	the
respondents		that	the	land	has	been	law	fully acquired	by
following	the	proced	ure	under	the	said	Act	read with	the
provisions	of	the	Land	Acqu	isition	Act	an	d consequent	to
the	passing	of	the	award	the	posses	sion	of the pr	operty
was	also	taken	over	and	was	deliver	ed	to the resp	ondent
No.4	on	7-11-198	6.	It	is	their	fur	ther case	that
consequent		to	the	acqui	sition	proce	edings	in acco	rdance
with	the	provis	ions	of law,	the	prope	rty	vest in	the
Government		and	conse	quently	the	posse	ssion	thereof	has
been	delivere	d to	the	respo	ndent	No.4	on	7-11-1986	and

¶24

there is no illegality committed by the respondent in

¶25

the acquisition proceedings.

¶26

6.		Upon	hearing	the	learned	Advoc	ates	for	the		parties
and	on	perusal	of	the	records,	we	do		not	find	it
necessary		to	address	to	all th	ose	issues	so	ught	to	be
raised		in the	matter	and	suffice	to	addr	ess	to	only	one

¶27

[7]

¶28

issue	regarding	the	fail	ure	on	t	he	part of	the
respondents	to	co	mply	with	the	ma	ndatory	provisions	of
law	relating	to	the	acqu	isition	of	the	land as	also
considering	the		stand	taken	by	the	resp	ondents in	the
reply	to the		case	put	forth	by	the	petitioner	which
apparently	disc	loses	tot	al	arbitrar	iness	on	the pa	rt of
the	respondents		as	well	as	the	illegali	ty in	claiming

¶29

right to the plot sought to have been acquired without

¶30

complying with the statutory provisions of the Act.

¶31

7.	The Section	126(	2) of the	said Act under which the
land	is sought	to	have been	acquired provides that the
State	Government	if	satisfied	that a particular land is
needed	for the	public	purpose,	it can proceed to make a
declaration	in	that	regard in	the manner provided in
Section	6 of th	e	Land Acquisit	ion Act, 1894 in respect
of	such land.		It further	provides that the declaration
so	published	shall,	notwithsta	nding anything contained
in the	Land Ac	quisitio	n Act,	be deemed to be a
declaration	duly m	ade	under	Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition	Act.	Th	e proviso	thereto states that
subject	to the	pro	visions of	sub-section (4) of Section
126	of the said	Act	, no such	declaration shall be made
after	the expiry	of	one	year from the date of
publication	of the	d	raft Region	al Plan, Development Plan
or any	other Plan,	or	Scheme, as	the case may be. The
limitation,	which	was	initially	of three years was
subsequently	amended	to	one year	under the Act No.10 of

¶32

[8]

¶33

1994, however, we are not concerned with the	said
amendment as the limitation which was in force at	the
relevant period was of three years.	Obviously
therefore, any declaration for acquisition of land	in
exercise of powers under Section 126 of the said	Act
read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act	could
have been issued within the period of three years	from
the date of publication of the draft Regional	Plan,
Development Plan, or any other Plan or Scheme. It	is
not in dispute that the development plan was	published
in the year 1967. It is nobody’s case that	thereafter
any other plan was published prior to the issuance	of
the Notification under Section 126 (2). Being so,	the
provision clearly require the acquisition proceedings	to
be initiated within the period of 3 years from the	date
of issuance of the plan in the year 1967. It i	s a
matter of record that no such acquisition pr	oceedings
were initiated in relation to the plot in	question
within three years from 1967 and the first N	otification

¶34

in the case in hand was issued only on 2-4-1974. It was

¶35

obviously beyond the period of three years.

¶36

8.	The	sub-section (4)	of	Section 126 of	the	said	Act
provides		that notwithst	anding	anything con	tained	in	the
proviso	to	sub-section (2),	if	a declaration	is	not	made
within	the	period re	ferred	to in sub-sec	tion	(2),	the
State	Govern	ment may	make	a fresh	dec	laration	for
acquiring	the	land under	the	Land Acquisit	ion	Act,	1894,

¶37

[9]

¶38

in	the	mann	er pro	vided	by	sub-s	ection	s (2) and	(3)	of
the	Mahar	ashtra	Reg	ional	and	To	wn	Planning Act,		1966,
subject	to	the	modificat	ion	that	the		market value	of	the
land	shall	be	the	ma	rket	v	alue	at the	dat	e of
declaration		in	the	Officia	l G	azette		made for		acquiring
the	land	afre	sh.	In	other	wor	ds,	mere failure	on	the
part	of	the	authority	to	take	s	teps	within three		years
could	not	deb	ar	the	Govern	ment	fro	m issuing	a	fresh
Notification		even	after	the	ex	piry	of	the said		period,
consequent		to	the	pro	visions	un	der	sub-section (	4)	of
the	said	Act.	Ho	wever,	it	is	nobo	dy’s case	that	any

¶39

such fresh Notification was issued at any time after the

¶40

said period.

¶41

9. The	above factors	by thems	elves	perhaps	would	not
have been	sufficient to	the		petitioners	to	seek
interference in	writ jurisdiction	in th	e	matter.	We	are
fully conscious	of the	limitations	of	this	Court	to
interfere in	the land ac	quisition	proc	eedings.	H	owever,
as rightly sub	mitted on beha	lf of	the	petition	ers in	the
facts and	circumstances of	the	case,	the	records	reveal
total arbitrarin	ess on the	part	of	the aut	horities	in
relation to	the land	acquisition	pr	oceedings,	as	also
the illegal	action sought	to be	tak	en to	get	the
possession of	the land in	question	a	nd the	same	clearly

¶42

justify interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction

¶43

in the case in hand.

¶44

[10]

¶45

10. T even prior	he fac to	ts which issuance	are of	brought the	on Not	record reveal ification under	that Section
126(2) of	the	said Act	read	with	Sectio	n 6 of the	land
Acquisition	Act,	the	Assis	tant D	irector	, Town	Planning
had inf	ormed	the Spe	cial	Land	Acqu	isition Officer	that
the land	in	question	was	reserved	for	housing in	"R"
Ward and	the	land	fell	in the	Tow	n Planning	Scheme,
Borivli III.		Further	it is	also	not	the case of	the
respondents	that	they w	ere	unaware	of	the fact that	the
land in	questio	n was	allo	wed to	be	utilised by	the
Corporation	for	the	purpo	se of	c	onstruction of	the
residential	building	for		the		members of	the
petitioner-society		consequ	ent	to	the	permission	granted
in the	year	1972.	It	is also	not	the case of	the
respondents	that	they	were	unaw	are	about the pe	rmission
granted	to	the	petitio	ner-society		for non-agr	icultural
use of	the	land by	th	e Sub-	Divisio	nal Officer under	his
order date	d 14-4	-1975.	It	is also	not	the case of	the
respondents	that	they	were	unawar	e	of the fin	alisation
of the	Town	Planning	Sc	heme as	far	as the plot	in
question	whereby	it	was		finally	allotted to	the
petitioners b	eing	reconstituted	p	lot N	o.409.	It is	also
not the	case	of the	resp	ondents	that	they were	unaware
of the	fact	that	the	building	s	for residential	purposes
were	already	constructe	d	by th	e	petitioner-society	and
the occup	ancy	certificat	e i	n that	rega	rd having	been
granted on the petit	20-11-1 ioner-socie	976, it ty.	was It	occupi is	ed pertin	by the member ent to note	s of that

¶46

[11]

¶47

inspite	of	all	these	fact	s, th	e res	pondents	cl	aim	to
have	pr	oceeded wit	h	the	acquisi	tion	proceedings	o	n	the
assumpti	on	that the	land	was	a	vacant	land	and	that	is
apparent	f	rom the	fact	that	the	award	which	was		passed
on	23-9-1	986 merely	ref	ered	to	the l	and in	ques	tion	to
the	extent	of 700	sq.m	etres	and	the	compen	sation	for	the
land	value	thereof.	I	t n	owhere	refe	red to	an	y s	tructure
on	the	said plot.		As		already	stated	a	bove,	the
petitione	r-society	h	ad	alre	ady	const	ructed	build	ing	and
even	the	occup	ancy	certi	ficate	in	respect	thereo	f	was
issued	to	them in	Nov	ember,	1976	whe	reas the	awa	rd	was
passed	in	1986.	As	far	as	the	valuation	in	relatio	n to

¶48

the subject-matter of acquisition in relation to the

¶49

suit land is concerned, the award reads thus:-

¶50

"(a) Land value bearing S.No.15/2 pt.

¶51

(CTS No.94 pt) area admeasuring 700 sq.mtrs at the rate of Rs.22/per sq.mtrs. belonging to Laxman Nagar Co-Op.Hsg.Soc. Rs.15,400.00

¶52

(b) Crops & Trees Nil (c) Severance injurious affection damage Nil

(d) 30% solatium

Rs. 4,620.00

[12]

(e) Component at 12% per annum of

¶57

market value payable from the
date of the notification till
the date of declaration of
award i.e., 4.7.74 to 23.9.86
i.e., 12 Yrs. 2 mths, 20 days Rs.22,585.26
------------
Total: Rs.42,605.26
Say Rs.42,605.00
------------"
11. Undoubtedly, the deficiency in the said award was
sought to be made good by issuing a supplementary award
on 20-11-1986 which refers to the structure and wire
fencing in the said land. The relevant portion of the

¶58

said supplementary award in that regard reads thus:-

¶59

"R) Structures wire fencing etc:-

¶60

There	is	one	pucca str	ucture	on	the land
of	S.N	o.15/2pt.	on	plot	No.458	which
belongs		to	Laxman	Nagar		Co.Op.Housing
Society		is	coming in	the	alignm	ent of
land	un	der	acquisition.		This	structures
was	not	on	the site	at	the	time of
notification			issued by		the	Commissioner
Bombay		Divis	ion under	sub-	section	(2) &
(4)	of	Section	126 of	M.R.	&	T.P.Act,

¶61

[13]

¶62

read	with		section	6	of	L.A.Act,	for
filing	his		claim		for	compen	sation.
However,		he	has	not	filed	his claim	for
compensatio	n for str	ucture	or the land."

¶63

12. It is p	ertinent to	note	that though in	the
supplementary award	there	is an	observation that	the
structure in the	said land	was not	in existence at	the
time of issuance	of noti	ce under	Section 126, in	the
award dated	23-9-1986	there was	specific reference	to
the fact that t	he land	belong	s to Laxman	Nagar
Co-operative Housing	Society.	At	the same time, in	the
supplementary award	there	is a	specific mention	about
service of notice	under	Section	9 of the	Land
Acquisition Act on	the owner	of the	land. There is	no
specific observation	in	the sup	plementary award	about
the service of	such notice	on th	e owner or the	occupant
of the structure	. At	the same	time the suppl	ementary
award also disclose	s complet	e knowl	edge to the a	cquiring
authority that the	structure	belongs	to the Laxman	Nagar
Co-operative Housing	Society.	In	normal course,	perhaps
even failure on	the part	of the	acquiring authority	to
serve notice may n	ot be fa	tal and	on that count the	land
acquisition proceedi	ngs	may	not stand	vitiated.
However, in the	case in	hand,	yet another strange	thing
which has come	to light	is th	at the supplementary	award
is dated 20-11-1986	and it	relates	to the acquisition	of
the structure in	the land	in que	stion. In other	words,

¶64

[14]

¶65

it is the con	tention of	the	res	pondents that acqu	isition
of the land	along with	the	structure	was complete	on
20-11-1986. Insp	ite thereof,	one	fai	ls to understand	as
to how the respo	ndents could	make	a	statement on oath	to
the effect th	at the land	was	acqui	red and poss	ession
thereof was t	aken on 7-1	1-1986.		While the af	fidavit
filed on behalf	of the	acq	uiring	body by Sak	haram
Pandurang Jadhav	, Special	Land	Acq	uisition Officer,	in
his affidavit	has stated	that	"The	possession of	the
land in question	has been	taken	from	the land owner	and
handed over to	the acquirin	g b	ody i	.e. the resp	ondent
No.4 on 7.11.19	86 through	the	survey	or from the	office
of the Additi	onal District	Insp	ector	of Land Re	cords".
Likewise, Shri	Mahadeo N	arayan	Ramp	ure, who has	filed
affidavit on behalf	of the	respo	ndent	No.4 has stated	in
his affidavit tha	t "The	poss	ession	of the land	in
question was take	n from the	lan	d own	er and handed	over
to the Responden	t No.4 on	7th	Novem	ber, 1986". The	law
on the point a	s to vesting	of	land	in the Government	is
well-settled. A	land vests	in	the	Government only	after
the acquisition	thereof in		accor	dance with	the
provisions of	law relating	to	the	acquisition of	land
concluded by	proper award		being	passed and	the
possession thereof	being taken.		The	Section 16 of	the
Land Acquisition	Act is	very	clear	in that	regard.
Undisputedly, the	provisions o	f S	ection	16 of the	Land
Acquisition Act	are applic	able	to	the acquisition	of
land under the pr	ovisions of	the	said	Act in view of	the

¶66

[15]

¶67

Section understand	128(2) thereof. how the respondent	Being so, one fails could have claimed to	to have
acquired	the possession of	the property in question	on
7-11-1986	when the a	cquisition proceedings were	not
validly	and legally concluded	on that day. Besides,	the
possession	must be taken	in the manner which	the
subject-mat	ter thereof perm	its delivery of p	ossession.
In	case of a structure	or a building, unless	physical
possession	thereof is taken	, question of vesting of	the
building	in the Government	by virtue of the p	rovisions
of Se	ction 16 of the	said Act would not	arise.
Undoubtedl	y, in a given	case, under the peculiar	facts
and	circumstances thereof,	the acquiring body	could
establish	that except dra	wing the panchnama	of
possession,	no other act	was possible and/or pe	rmissible
and	that therefore the	panchnama of possession	itself
would	be conclusive proof	of taking over the p	ossession
of	the acquired property.	But that is not the case	in
hand.	In the absence of	a proper and lawful award	being
made	in relation to the	acquisition of the land	in
question	and the possessio	n being not taken in	the
manner	known to law,	all above facts obviously	disclose
that	the proceedings for	acquisition of the land	in
question	were not in acc	ordance with the provisions	of
law,	besides, there being	arbitrariness on the part	of
the	concerned authorities	in the entire pro	ceedings.
Therefore,	in the facts of	the case, the petitioners	are
justified	in submitting that	the awards in question	to

¶68

[16]

¶69

the exte	nt the same relate to the property of	the
petitioner adme	asuring 700 sq.mtrs. need to be quashed.
13.	It is also pertinent to note that the	proposed
acquisition	was essentially for the purpose	of
construction	of the housing accommodation for the	staff
of BES	T. It is also undisputed fact that the land	in
question	has been utilised by the petitioners for	the
construction	of the housing accommodation for	the
members	of the co-operative society and the co-	operative
society	consists of the members who are employees of	a
nationalised	bank. Though the contention of the	learned
Advocate	that the utilisation of the land	for
co-operative	housing society would itself amount	to
fulfilment	of the public purpose in relation	to
utilisation	of the land for housing purposes can no	t be
accepted	without being properly substantiated, the	fact
remains	that the land has not been utilised for	the
purpose	other than for housing accommodation. It	is
also a	matter of record that such utilisation	was
carried	out much prior to issuance of the notice	under

¶70

Section 126(2) of the said Act read with Section 6 of

¶71

the Land Acquisition Act.

¶72

In the background of the above facts, the petitioners are justified in contending that before proceeding to acquire the land for housing purposes for the staff of BEST, it was necessary for the concerned

¶73

[17]

¶74

authorities to	apply	their mind as to whe	ther said
property could	also	be included in the	proposed
acquisition or	was	required to be excluded	therefrom.
It is not the	case on	behalf of the respondents	that any
such exercise w	as carr	ied out at any time	by the
respondents before	passing	the awards in question.	This
certainly discloses	arb	itrariness and non-applica	tion of
mind to the the respondents, as rightly s behalf of the petitioners.	relevant ought to be	aspect of the matter in argued on	issue by
15. In the	peculi	ar facts and circumstances	, therefore,
we are left	with	no alternative than to	quash the
impugned awards	only	to the extent they relate	to the
property in ques	tion i.e.	an area of 700 sq.m	etres in
survey No.15/2	(Part)	CTS No.94 (Part) which	as the
subject-matter at	Clause	6 of the award date	d 23-9-1986

¶75

and the supplementary award dated 20-11-1986. The rule

¶76

is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶77

(R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.)

¶78

(V.M. Kanade, J.)

Laxman Nagar Co-Op Hsg. Soc.and Anr. v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Nagar Co-Op Hsg. Soc.and Anr. v. State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Smt. Anandibai Vasantrao Lonkar

State of Maharashtra(Thorugh Spl.Land Acq.Officer. Vs Balram Parshuram Patil.

Shri Harbansing Ghattarsingh and Another Vs Shri Pradeep B. Shingore

Vidya Sharad Urankar Vs the Special Land Acquision Officer (Mhada) and Ors.

M/S.Khodiyar Builders Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ali Ahmed Khan and Anr. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors. and Mrs. Fahmida and Ors.