The petitioner challenged the acquisition of land under Survey No.29/4, contending it belonged to Survey No.29/5. The Court held that as the declaration specified No.29/4 and possession was taken, the public purpose remained valid. It refused to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to set aside the proceedings.
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 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5910 OF 2006
Rajaram Anandrao Bhande Patil....Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr.R.V. Pai with Mr.Ajit Kocharekar for the
Petitioner.
Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ.
DATED : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2007.
P.C. :
1.The declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the said Act") in
respect of the property survey No.29/4 (part) was
issued on 16.1.1975. Out of the total area of 1 acre
and 5 gunthas, what is acquired was 0-45-53. The
award was passed on 28.3.1977. The possession was
taken in the year 1994.
2.It is the contention of the Petitioner that
in fact the land in respect of which the declaration
was issued and the award passed is not part of the
land identified under survey No.29/4 but the land
: 2 :
identified under survey No.29/5. So far as the land
identified under survey No.29/5 is concerned, it
appears that in the notification issued on 19.2.1980,
one of the lands shown is survey No.29/5 of village
Borkhal, Taluka Satara, District Satara.
3.The Petitioner herein had filed a suit
contending that the said land does not form part of
the subject matter of the award. Those proceedings,
including the Second Appeal preferred before this
Court, being Second Appeal No.669 of 2001 was
dismissed by an order dated 30.6.2006, relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court, that proceedings under
Section 4 of the said Act and the declaration under
Section 6 of the said Act or the award cannot be
challenged by way of suit.
.We are not called upon to go into the
legality or correctness of the judgment dated
30.6.2006 passed in Second Appeal No.669 of 2001.
Suffice it to say that once the declaration is issued
under Section 6 of the said Act and that declaration
speaks of survey No.29/4 and an award came to be made
thereafter, and possession taken, unless and until the
declaration was amended, the public purpose so far as
the land identified under survey No.29/4 (part) is in
: 3 :
terms of the declaration issued.
4.This therefore is not a fit case for us to
exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
5.The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to set aside the acquisition proceeding under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where the declaration clearly identified survey
Whether a subsequent suit or appeal challenging the inclusion of land in the subject matter of the award is maintainable once possession has been taken.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajaram Anandrao Bhande Patil
The State of Maharashtra
F.I. Rebello
S.J. Vaizard
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court