JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. The learned Counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner was owner of Survey No. 17 (New Gut No. 50), admeasuring 6H, 58 R., of land situated at Taroda, Tq. Motala, District Buldhana. Proceedings under Land Acquisition Act were initiated and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19-7-1984. Section 6 notification was issued on 17-8-1985 and award in the Special Land Acquisition case No. LAO 93-93-84 of village Taroda was made on 24-10-1986.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that, as per the award the petitioner is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 16,988.40. The learned Counsel for petitioner further submitted that notice was issued by Rehabilitation Officer, Buldhana to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was informed that his land out of survey No. 17 area 1 H, 21 R, was acquired for rehabilitation of the project affected persons, however, after distribution of the land to the project affected persons, the land of the petitioner remained surplus and, therefore, the land of the petitioner under acquisition was to be given back to him, and the petitioner was required to intimate whether he was prepared to take back the said land as per order of the State Government. The said information was required to be given by the petitioner within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said notice issued by the rehabilitation officer. It is contended by the petitioner that on 16-4-1990, he informed the Rehabilitation Officer, Buldhana his willingness to take back the land under acquisition. However, after the said communication of willingness submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner did not receive any communication or reply in this regard, and therefore, a reminder was also sent by the petitioner to the Rehabilitation Officer in this regard, even then no steps were taken by the Rehabilitation Officer to restore the land to the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the award is passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the present case, however, possession of land in question is with the petitioner till date, and therefore, the land under acquisition did not vest with the State Government, consequently the land in question can be restored back to the petitioner. In order to substantiate his contention, reliance is placed in the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court reported in 2001(2) Scale 528, Jethumal v. State of Bihar.
4. Shri Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, contended that the State Government at no point of time initiated any proceedings for withdrawal of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in respect of the land of the petitioner, which was acquired for rehabilitation of project affected persons. It is contended that Section 4 and Section 6 notifications were issued on the dates referred above, and award under Section 11 of the Act, was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and by virtue of the said award Land Acquisition Proceedings finally concluded, and therefore, since the State Government has not initiated any proceedings for withdrawal of the Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act the question of restoring the land back to the petitioner does not arise. It is further contended that the notice which is annexed to the petition, issued by the Rehabilitation Officer is undated and, therefore, it is not possible even for the respondents to ascertain as to whether there is such notice infact is issued by the Authority. Even otherwise according to the learned AGP, the notice alleged to have been issued by the Rehabilitation Officer cannot supersede the award, consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to get back the possession of the land, which stands acquired by virtue of passing of the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner is acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, and as per the procedure contemplated therein. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award on 24-10-1986, and by virtue of the said award, the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land of the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act stands concluded. It is not in dispute that at no point of time, before or after passing of the award the validity of the same was called in question by the petitioner either before this Court or before the competent Court, and therefore, the land acquisition proceedings initiated so far as the land of the petitioner, are finally concluded by virtue of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the award is in force till such time it is either set aside, altered or modified by the competent Court or authority. After the passing of the award the claimant can only ask for enhance compensation, if he is not satisfied with amount under award. We are afraid that in absence of the challenge to the validity of the award by the petitioner, the land which is acquired under the land acquisition proceedings cannot be divested till such time the award is in force.
6. The petitioner has annexed a document which is at Annexure-II, alleged to have been sent by the Rehabilitation Officer to the petitioner. However, the said document is undated and therefore, it creates a doubt about its legitimacy. The learned AGP also expressed that no such communication was sent by the Rehabilitation Officer. There is nothing on record to show that the Rehabilitation Officer had issued such communication which is annexed to the petition by the petitioner. In view of these facts, it is not possible for us to hold that the Rehabilitation Officer in fact has issued such communication which is annexed to the petition as Annexure-II, whereby the petitioner is called upon to inform whether he would be interested in getting back the land under acquisition.
7. The learned AGP has made categorical statement before us that at no point of time there was any move by the State Government either to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings before and after passing of the award, and even if it is presumed that the Rehabilitation Officer sent a communication, referred to above, the said communication cannot have overriding effect in respect of the award, and therefore, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and devoid of substance.
8. There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment. However, the law laid down by the Apex Court operates in altogether different sphere and in totally different facts, and therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are afraid that the said decision is of no help to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. In the circumstances, for reasons stated above, the Writ Petition suffers from lack of merits and the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.