Disposed

Gram-Panchayat, Satala v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Sept 2013WP/3030/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court observed that Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed due to the failure of the Authority to complete the Section 5A enquiry. The court directed the State Government to issue a fresh notification and proceed with acquisition while leaving the invocation of the emergency clause to the State's subjective satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to take cognizance of the acquittal of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and to take appropriate action. It is open to the State Government to issue a fresh notification under S

Gram-Panchayat, Satala Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP/3030/2013+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3030 OF 2013 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 711 OF 2011

¶5

GRAM-PANCHAYAT, SATALA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocates for Petitioners : Shri S.B.Talekar & Shri A.B.Kale AGP for Respondents 1 to 4 : Shri S.K.Tambe Advocate for Respondents 6 : Smt. Madhubala Gangwal

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 20, 2013

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

The petitioners in Writ Petition No.711 of 2011 are the land owners, who challenged initiation of proceeding of acquisition of their lands on the ground that they are already project affected and as there are three schemes in the vicinity, fourth scheme for very same purpose and acquisition of their lands for such fourth scheme is not in the public interest. In the alternative, it is contended that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, hereinafter, referred as "1894 Act") has been published on 20.4.2009 and hence, the declaration under Section 6 of 1894 Act ought to have been made, at the most, by 20.4.2010. That declaration was not made and hence initiation and Section 4 notification lapsed. Writ Petition has been filed on 15.12.2010 and in it, this Court has granted status quo on 1.2.2011. This Court, however, lateron clarified that status quo does not prohibit the authority from undertaking exercise of joint measurement.

¶10

Learned Advocate Shri Kale submits that as Section 4 notification has

¶11

WP/3030/2013+

¶12

¶13

lapsed, in any case a fresh application of mind by the competent authority is called for. The objection of the petitioners can be looked into by the said authority.

¶14

Writ Petition No.3030 of 2013 is filed by Gram Panchayat. According to Gram Panchayat, residents within it's area need drinking water and a scheme therefor is already finalized Funds released by the Central Government are already received and are likely to lapse if emergent steps are not taken to acquire the lands. Learned Advocate Shri Talekar submits that out of total 36 land owners, only 6 are opposing the land acquisition while remaining 30 have either given consent or executed sale deeds and most part of land has become available for execution of project. He, therefore, requests the Court to direct respondents to take necessary steps under Section 17 of the 1894 Act by invoking emergency clause.

¶15

Learned Advocate Shri Kale is opposing the contention. According to him, the facts stated are not correct. Even otherwise, whether to invoke the emergency clause or not is the subjective satisfaction of the State Government and he contends that, that decision needs to be reached independently in it's wisdom by the State authority.

¶16

Learned AGP is opposing both the petitions. He contends that proceedings are going on in accordance with law.

¶17

We have perused the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3

¶18

WP/3030/2013+

¶19

¶20

in Writ Petition No.711 of 2011. That affidavit is sworn on 22.2.2011 by one Brijesh Patil, working as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Purna Project, Latur. Said officer in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit has stated that a notice inviting objections under Section 5A of the Act was issued and thereafter he made efforts to conduct a joint measurement. However, because of the opposition of the villagers that exercise could not be completed.

¶21

We find the stand of said Officer and that of respondents surprising. During Section 5A enquiry objections received could have been perused and parties present could have been heard. If the parties were not cooperative and were not ready, the matter could have proceeded ex-parte. Said Officer has by his inaction, permitted the earlier land acquisition proposal to lapse. We direct respondent No.1 to take cognizance of his conduct and to take appropriate action in the matter.

¶22

The petitioners, who are land owners, cannot be subjected to very same Section 4 notification. The land acquisition proceedings have already lapsed. It is, therefore, open to the State Government to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act and to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioners to raise all objections to such a notification and/or to initiation of land acquisition proceedings as permissible in law.

¶23

In so far as the Gram Panchayat is concerned, it is acting in the public interest. It has received amount of grants which need to be utilized for

¶24

WP/3030/2013+

¶25

¶26

constructing a scheme for providing drinking water. If these contentions are true and correct and if the Government finds that there is any substance in the request being made by the Gram Panchayat, it is open to the State Government to find out whether provisions of Section 17 of 1894 Act need be resorted to in the matter. This Court cannot direct the respondents to consider the need of that course at this juncture. After the need is evaluated and finding in one way or the other is recorded by the State Government, aggrieved party can approach this Court and invoke it's writ jurisdiction. This Court, in that event, within the scope of judicial review available to it can find correctness or otherwise of the said decision.

¶27

Shri Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, however, insists for granting other prayer in Writ Petition No.3030 of 2013. He contends that villagers have resorted to violence and hence joint measurement could not be undertaken. It is always open to the respondents to take appropriate measures if the land is required in the public interest. No directions are necessary at this stage.

¶28

Hence, with above directions and directions to parties to proceed in accordance with law and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the present Writ Petitions, with no order as to costs.

¶29

akl

Gram-Panchayat, Satala v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram-Panchayat, Satala v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ajay Deepak Hiwrale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kewalabai Mariba Gaikwad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aurangabad Zilla Majdoor Kamgar Sahakari Sansthecha Sangh Limited and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Gangadhar Mergewad Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Shri Guru Ganesh Jain Shikshan Samiti and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Sayed Mehmood Sardar S/O Sayed Sardar Ibrahim Vs the State of Mah and Ors.