Annarao Baloba Gaikwad vs The Solapur Municipal ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 351 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.G. Palshikar, J.

1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") on the ground that the acquisition of his land is unsustainable under the provisions of the act. Further proceedings were stayed when Rule was granted. Replies have been filed and the matter was heard. Both the parties advanced their respective submissions in this regard. The contention of Shri Kumbhakoni, Advocate was that there has been violation of provisions of Section 5A as the petitioners were not heard or their objections to acquisition were not properly considered. We are unable to accept this contention for the reason that the notification under Section 4 which is Ex. H at page 35 itself stipulates that the objectors would be heard by themselves or through their lawyers. Then there is unequivocal statement made on affidavit that interested persons were heard after due notice as contemplated by Section 5A of the act. This statement on affidavit is not controverted. First contention of the learned counsel that the provisions of Section 5A are violated and therefore notification under Section 6 is liable to be quashed is untenable and therefore is rejected.

2. The next contention stated is only for being rejected. The contention is that land to be acquired for erecting memorial of Dr. Kotnis is not public purpose. The great deeds of the great Doctor are well known throughout the country. To say erection of a memorial of such a great man is not a public purpose is in fact, in our opinion, an insult to great memories of the Doctor. Constructing memorials of National Heroes is undoubtedly a public purpose and this contention also is therefore rejected.

3. Then it was contended by the learned counsel that the municipality proposes to demolish the entire structure existing and erect new structure thereon in the memory of Dr. Kotnis. Contention being that Dr. Kotnis had no association with the house over which now the Corporation desires to construct a memorial. No purpose of memorizing the memories of Dr. Kotnis would be served by total demolition of property and erection of new building. What is sought to be created on the acquired land is to erect a hospital in memory of Dr. Kotnis. In our opinion, this is a fitting tribute to the tireless services rendered by Dr. Kotnis to humanity in China. He himself was a doctor and a dispensary or hospital in his memory at his birth place would be a fitting tribute to the great deeds of the great man. It cannot therefore be said that no public purpose would be achieved in the instant case.

4. Then it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Solapur there already exist four memorials of Dr. Kotnis, creating fifth one is not necessary nor can it be a public purpose. The four memorials that exist are in the name of Dr. Kotnis created by someone else. If the municipal corporation itself was to create memorial for Dr. Kotnis it cannot be said that it is not necessary. There is therefore no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 500/-.