Bombay High Court
Narayan Hiru Gondhali vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 16 August, 2017
38-WP.1228.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1228 OF 2016
Narayan Hiru Gondhali } Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra }
and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Sachin Punde for the petitioner.
Ms. S. S. Bhende-AGP for State.
Ms. Prerana Adhav i/b. M/s. Jurisperitus,
Mumbai for respondent no. 5.
CORAM :- DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. &
N.M.JAMDAR, J.
DATE :- AUGUST 16, 2017
P.C. :-
1. The petitioner has approached this court contending that
Survey No. 129, Hissa No. 1/A admeasuring about 61 ares,
situated at village Wadghar, taluka Panvel, district Raigad was
never the subject matter of acquisition proceedings, which were
initiated in the year 1970. According to the petitioner, prior to
1970 notification so far as his hissa is concerned, the land was
already mutated in his name. However, without acquiring the
land of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure
contemplated, the 7/12 extract seems to have noted that even
J.V.Salunke,P.S.
38-WP.1228.2016.doc
Hissa No. 1/A in Survey No. 129 was acquired. The petitioner is
before this court seeking proper directions to the respondent
State.
2. In response to the petition, reply affidavit of the Land
Acquisition Officer is placed on record. The Land Acquisition
Officer clearly indicates in paras 2 and 3 that when preliminary
notification so far as Survey No. 129 came to be issued, the
subject-matter of acquisition notification was only Hissa Nos. 1 to
7 and Hissa No. 1/A was never part of the acquisition
proceedings. Para 4 onwards, the affidavit in reply clearly
indicates how much land was acquired from which hissa number.
Para 7 of the reply affidavit clearly indicates that section 6
declaration does not indicate Survey No. 129, Hissa No. 1/A.
According to him, no award also came to be passed so far as this
hissa number is concerned.
3. On going through pages 22 and 23 of the writ petition,
which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies
upon, it is seen that Hissa No. 1/A has come into existence
somewhere in 1970. Even if Hissa No. 1/A has come into
existence in 1970, unless the 7/12 extract indicates the subject
division numbers vis a vis the respective owner or person
interested in the land, there is no obligation on the part of the
J.V.Salunke,P.S.
38-WP.1228.2016.doc
acquiring authority to verify whether any person is interested in
the land, whose name is not indicated in the 7/12 extract. Under
these circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner
to further establish that he was declared as a tenant prior to
declaration of intention to acquire the land under section 4
followed by section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Hissa
No. 1/A was already in existence along with his name in the 7/12
extract. Then alone, we would be able to appreciate his stand that
Hissa No. 1/A in Survey No. 129 was not part of the acquisition
proceedings. If Hissa No. 1/A in the above said survey number
has come into existence subsequent to acquisition proceedings
being initiated, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to
approach the authorities at the relevant point of time.
4. We direct the petitioner to place on record information
clarifying his position as on the date of declaration under section
4 as well as section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a
period of four weeks from today.
5. List the matter after four weeks.
(N. M. JAMDAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
J.V.Salunke,P.S.
