Rajaram Ananda Patil v. The State of Maharashtra

Shri. P.V. Barde, Advocate, holding for Shri. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate, for petitioners. Shri. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri. S.S. Dande, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAWARE, JJ. DATE: 23rd NOVEMBER 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2 2) Petitioners' land was admittedly acquired by the State for the purpose of industrial development under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act

1961. The Award was passed in respect of subject land. The petitioners have filed reference petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation. The petitioners' stand is that the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. There is no development of the subject land and the surrounding area. The petitioners therefore filed representation on 10-5-2004 addressed to the Hon'ble Minister, Government of Maharashtra, which according to the petitioners, is not decided. 3) The State has filed affidavit-in- reply. The stand of the State is that some of the plots are already allotted out of the 3 acquired area and the acquisition was required for the purpose of industrial development. Learned counsel Shri. Dande appearing for the MIDC submitted that, the award in respect of the subject land is already passed. The petitioners have also preferred Reference Petitions, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek relief of de-reservation of their land from acquisition. The land was acquired by the MIDC for industrial development. 4) We have perused the record placed before us, the reply filed, and considered the provisions of the MIDC Act 1961 and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 5) Whether a particular piece of land is required for public purpose, industrial 4 development, is to be decided by the State. The authorities concerned, who are acquiring the land, have to take decision in respect of whether the land is to be deleted from reservation on the grounds available in law. 6) In view the stand adopted today by learned AGP Shri. S.K. Kadam and Shri. Dande counsel appearing for the MIDC we are not inclined to issue any directions to the State and interfere in the matter in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7) The writ petition is rejected. 8) The counsel for the petitioners prays for leave to file a representation. They are entitled to file a fresh representation / petition to the State Government in respect of 5 their grievances in respect of de-reservation their lands, if they so desire. Sd/- Sd/- (SHRIHARI P DAWARE, J.)(NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.2808.08