Karim Hasan Khan, deceased v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. M.B. Gawade for the petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents No.1 to 6. R.M. SAVANT, JJ. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2009. P.C.:

The petitioner has approached this court praying that the agreement which has been effected under section 11(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 19th June, 2009 between the respondents No.2 to 7 and respondents No.8a to 8A to 8J and 9A and 9B be set aside. It is an agreement in respect of Gat No.479 admeasuring 6 Hectares, 12 R situated at Bormani, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur. The facts which are not in dispute are as : 2 : follows. The respondents No.8 and 9 are tenants of the said land on 1st April, 1957 and the petitioner No.1 has died long back. However, the Petition has been filed on behalf of the said petitioner No.1 and his heirs and legal representatives. We do not wish to comment on the manner in which the cause title has been shown and the Petition has been filed, suffice it to state that it is misconceived. The relationship of petitioner and the respondents No.8 and 9 is that of landlord and tenant and the respondents No.8 and 9 were the tenants on 1st April, 1957. Thereby, they have become deemed purchasers of the property being in possession of the property. Not only that, enquiry under section 32G of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was conducted and the purchase price was fixed by the Agricultural Control Land Tribunal at Rs.920/-. There is an entry in the other rights column of the 7X12 extract that the land allotted under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is for restricted tenure. Since the rights of ownership have been extinguished with effect of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the purchase price was fixed and certificate under section 32 was also granted in the name of the tenants on the date of acquisition in question the tenants were the owners of the property and the erstwhile landlord was not entitled to any compensation of the said property. Therefore, the respondents have : 3 : rightly entered into an agreement with the respondent-tenants and the tenants’ heirs. Under these circumstances, we do not find any fault with the agreement between the respondents interse.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has raised an objection in view of the Notification issued under section 4 and it is obligatory on the Acquisition Officer to hear him under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and consider his objection. The facts stated above are very eloquent. Basically a person filing objection under section 4 must show that he has an interest in the property and then only he gets a right to be heard under section 5A of the said Act. Since the petitioner has no right or interest in the property, he has no right of hearing under section 5A. The matter has been rightly dealt with by the respondent. We, therefore, find that the Petition is without any merit and it is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (R.M. SAVANT, J.) Sd/-

(S.B. MHASE, J.)