Pratik S/O Prakashchand ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 563 Bom

JUDGMENT

Naresh H. Patil, J.

1. Rule. Rule made absolute forthwith. By the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. Respondents waive service of rule.

2. Petitioner no. 1 claims to be the son of the daughter of the original owner petitioner no. 2 of the subject land. Shri Challani, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 2 expired. The petitioner has placed on record the affidavit filed by Kusumbai wife of deceased Madanlal petitioner no. 2 stating therein that Madanlal during his life time executed a registered gift deed on 28-1-1999 in favour of petitioner no. 2 Pratik in respect of the agricultural land bearing survey no. 54/B of village Puini, Tq. Gangakhed to the extent of 1 H 21 R. The gift deed was registered at sr. no. 308 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gangakhed. Petitioner no. 2 expired on 17-6-2006. The names of the legal heirs of deceased Madanlal are also mentioned in said affidavit. Deponent further states that she has no objection as regards the gift deed. The gift deed is also placed on record. Accordingly, Leelabai mother of petitioner Pratik and daughter of Madanlal who is a widow has also filed affidavit in support of the claim of the petitioner. One Sangita w/o Premchandji Khiwansara has also filed affidavit.

3. The petitioners land in gut no. 54/B admeasuring 1 H 21 R situated in village Puini, Dist. Parbhani was acquired for rehabilitation of flood affected persons. We need to mention here that the dates occurring in the petition, affidavit in reply and the copy of award placed on record by the learned AGP are somewhat different. By consent of the parties, we adopt the dates concerning the publication of the declaration of the notice/notification as occurring in the award would be the base for deciding the issue. Therefore, we adopt the dates as mentioned in the award for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in this petition.

4. Section 4 notification was issued on 12-3-2001. It was published in daily newspaper Zunzar Neta on 27-3-2001. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 7-5-2002 and it was published in daily newspaper Zunzar Neta on 28-8-2002. The award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19-5-2006.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the proceeding of land acquisition has lapsed. It is also submitted that Section 6 declaration was also made beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the contesting parties. The provisions of Section 11A of the Act of 1894 reads:

11A. The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.

Explanation :- In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

6. We find that the award was declared beyond the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The declaration of the award would be hit by the provisions of Section 11A. We find that the declaration made under Section 6 was beyond the period of one year from the declaration of preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

7. Shri K.B. Choudhari, learned AGP on instructions states that apparently it is found that the award was not declared within prescribed period of two years. But at the same time, learned AGP states that the State still intends to take necessary steps for acquiring the said land for public purpose in accordance with law. It is for the State Government to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, if it chooses to do so.

8. Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for respondent no. 4 states that the land acquired was to be utilised for extension of gaonthan. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in the light of the clear facts, it is apparent that the reservation of the subject land stands lapsed. The petition is required to be allowed. We are in agreement with the contention raised by the petitioners. Apparently, the subject land was not acquired within a period of two years of the date of publication of the declaration. We, therefore, find that the acquisitionof the subject land is lapsed.

9. In the light of these circumstances, the acquisition proceeding initiated in respect of the subject land is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land gut no. 54(b) admeasuring 1 H 21 R is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.