Civil Application filed by the State of Maharashtra to vacate an ad-interim order preventing possession of land during acquisition proceedings. the Court rejected the application, holding that the section 5A inquiry was not held in time.
Civil Application rejected; ad-interim relief preventing possession remains in force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
srp.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPL. NO. 1105 OF 2007.
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8481 OF 2005.
The State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Applicants.
V E R S U S
Suhas S. Damdhere & others. ..Respondents.
---
Mr. C. R. Sonawane AGP for the applicant.
Mr. P. B. Shah for the respondents.
CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 26, 2007.
P.C.
1. Heard. This civil application has been
filed by the Government for vacating the order of
ad-interim passed by this Court on 7th September 2006
(Exhibit-"I").
2. The petitioner in this petition is
challenging the land acquisition proceedings. After
hearing the petitioner the petition has been admitted
by an order dated 7th September 2006, (Coram:
S.Radhakrishnan & V.M. Kanade, JJ.). By that order
the Court also granted ad-interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (a), i.e., preventing respondents from
taking possession of the property. However, the
:2:
respondents were permitted to proceed with the land
acquisition proceedings save and except taking
possession.
3. Learned AGP Mr. C. R. Sonawane
submitted that thereafter the State has proceeded
with the acquisition, and has issued notice under
section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short,
"the Act".). He therefore prays that ad-interim
relief be vacated so the State can take possession of
the acquired property.
4. We have heard learned AGP and counsel for
the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the entire land acquisition proceedings are
vitiated as the enquiry under section 5A of the Act
has not been held. On our query, learned AGP
submitted that the notification under section 4(1) of
the Act was served on the petitioner on 25th June
2005 and enquiry under section 5A was held on 1st
July 2005. Section 5A contemplates one month’s
notice to be given to the owner for raising the
objections to the acquisition. Since notice under
section 4(1) of the Act was served on 25th June 2005
the petitioner had time to raise objections upto 24th
July 2005. Inquiry under section 5A could not have
been held before 24th July 2005. We are therefore
prima facie satisfied that the inquiry allegedly held
on 1st July 2005 is not in accordance with law and/or
:3:
is a farce as contended by the petitioner. In the
circumstances we see no reason to modify the order
passed by this Court granting ad-interim relief.
Civil Application is accordingly rejected.
5. State is however at liberty to rectify the
defects in the acquisition proceedings, if any, and
proceed in accordance with law after rectifying the
defects.
(D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether ad-interim relief preventing possession should be vacated pending completion of land acquisition
Whether the enquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was held in accordance with law
3 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Suhas S. Damdhere & others
S.B. Mhase
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court