Sachin Omprakash Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13811 Bom

                                     *1*                           918ca9487o21


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9487 OF 2021
                         IN WP/6889/2015

                SACHIN OMPRAKASH BAJAJ
                        VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                 ...
         Advocate for the Applicant : Shri Bhandari Anand P.
         AGP for Respondents 1, 2 and 4 : Shri S.R. Yawalkar
            Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri S.S. Deve
                                 ...

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                             &
                                       S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE :- 24th September, 2021

Per Court :-

1. This Civil Application has been filed by the original

petitioner seeking slight modification in our judgment dated

24.08.2021 delivered in his Writ Petition No.6889/2015.

2. Shri Bhandari, the learned advocate for the

applicant, submits that out of inadvertence, the date of the

notification under Section 32(1) of the Maharashtra Industrial

Development Act, 1961 was mentioned as 04.11.2010. Actually,

the said date is 08.03.2012. Consequentially, the observation in

paragraph 9 beginning from "Nevertheless, ........ agricultural

*2* 918ca9487o21

land." appearing on page 6 of the judgment, will have to be

modified and the rider imposed by this Court that the land at

issue shall be deemed to be an agricultural land, will have to be

lifted.

3. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the learned counsel representing respondent

No.3, while opposing the prayer, submit that the notification

under Section 1(3) of Chapter VI of the MID Act, 1961 was

published on 04.11.2010. As such, the NA-44 order received by

the petitioner in December, 2010 will be after the said

notification. The intention of the Government to acquire the land

for a public purpose was disclosed vide the said notification and

hence, this was followed by the petitioner acquiring the NA-44

order for self serving purposes. They, therefore, submit that the

observations in paragraph 9, especially the portion appearing on

page 6 of the judgment of this Court, need not be modified.

4. We find that once the notification is issued under

Section 1(3) making Chapter VI applicable to a particular area,

the landholders in those area gather knowledge that the land is

likely to be acquired for a public project. The proviso below

Section 1(3) also indicates that if in the opinion of the State

*3* 918ca9487o21

Government, any area or any part thereof where Chapter VI has

been brought into force, is not required or is not likely to be

required for the purpose of development as industrial area, the

State Government may, by a like notification, direct that Chapter

VI shall cease to be in force in that area or any part thereof on

such date as may be specified in the notification, except as

respects things done or omitted to be done before such

notification.

5. In view of the above, we find that the issuance of

notification on 04.11.2010 under Section 1(3) making Chapter VI

applicable to the land at issue, would give an indication that the

State Government has the intention to develop the said land for a

public project. Admittedly, the NA-44 permission has been

acquired by the applicant/ petitioner in December, 2010, which is

after the notification dated 04.11.2010 under Section 1(3). In this

backdrop, though we would partly allow the Civil Application to

carryout correction in paragraph 5(b) and insert clause 5(aa). Our

observations in paragraph 9 will require the addition of the

notification issued under Section 1(3) of the MID Act, 1961.

6. In view of the above, this Civil Application for

modification is partly allowed. Paragraph 5(a) will be followed

*4* 918ca9487o21

by paragraph 5(aa) as under :-

"(aa) The Government issued the notification on

04.11.2010 under Section 1(3) of the MID Act, 1961 thereby,

making Chapter VI applicable to the land at issue."

7. The incorrect date mentioned in paragraph 5(b) will,

therefore, undergo change and read as "08.03.2012." Paragraph

5(b) will thus, read as under :-

"5(b) On 08th March, 2012, the notification under Section

32(1) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for

short "MID Ac") was published."

8. Consequentially, the portion beginning from the

word "Nevertheless" and ending with the words "agricultural

land", in paragraph 9 would read as under :-

"Nevertheless, it would be necessary to record while

negating the submissions of Shri Bhandari (that the land at issue

be treated as being NA-44 for the purposes of computation of

compensation), that Section 1(3) notification dated 04.11.2010

made Chapter VI applicable to the land at issue which includes

the land of the petitioner and that Section 32(4) and Section

32(5) of the MID Act mandate that once the land vests in the

State Government pursuant to the publication of the notification

*5* 918ca9487o21

under Section 32(1), the owner of the land is precluded from

dealing with the said land in any manner and hence, the land at

issue shall be deemed to be an agricultural land."

kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)