This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1987 land acquisition award. The petitioner, not named in 1983 or 1985 notifications, claimed ignorance until 2011. The court held no ground for reopening the case and dismissed the petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
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.
sk
wp1546.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.1546 OF 2012
Shri Milind Shripad Date : Petitioner V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents
Mr.N.J.Patil for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2012.
P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asstt.
Govt. Pleader for the respondents.
2. The following facts are not in dispute:-
In the instant case, section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was issued on 30.6.1983. Section 6 notification under the Act was issued on 11.9.1985
1 of 3
sk
wp1546.12
and the award under section 11A of the Act was published on 20.10.1987. The land was acquired for the public purpose of re-settlement of displaced persons.
sk
wp1546.12
ares was not shown to be owned by the petitioner in section 4 notification dated 30.6.1983 issued by the respondents. In view of these facts, the claim of the petitioner that he received knowledge about all these facts only in the month of November 2011 cannot entitles him to re-open the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 11A of the Act. Similarly, the name of the petitioner is also not mentioned in section 4 notification as owner/occupier in respect of the land in question.
There is also no provision in law to divest the land once it vests in the Government after the award under section 11A of the Act is passed. For
the reasons stated above, no ground is made out for showing indulgence. Rest of the contentions raised in the petition are not relevant for deciding
the controversy in the matter and the same are rejected.
(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)
Suundaresan
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can challenge a land acquisition award passed in 1987 when he claims lack of knowledge until 2011 but was not named in the notifications.
Whether there is any legal provision to divest land once it vests in the government after the award is passed.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Milind Shripad Date
The State of Maharashtra
D.D. SINHA
V.K.TAHILRAMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
