Kachrusing & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

( 1 ) WP-744-2007+2IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 744 OF 2007Kachrusing s/o. Santramsingh Rajput (died) Through LRs. And Ors....PetitionersVersusThe State of Maharashtra and Ors....RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1077 of 2007Rajeshwar S/o. Damodhar More...PetitionerVersusThe State of Maharashtra and Ors....RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO.2334 OF 2007M/s. Rana Sahebrao Mannuram ...PetitionerVersusThe State of Maharashtra and Ors....Respondents...Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. P. S. Dighe and Mr. R. L.Kute, i/by V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr. Vaibhav P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 inWP/744/2007.Mr. Shambhuraj V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 inWP/1077-2334/2007.Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 2 ) WP-744-2007+2CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT &SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR,JJ.RESERVED ON:17th APRIL 2026.PRONOUNCED ON12th JUNE 2026.JUDGMENT :- [PER – KISHORE C. SANT, J.]1.Heard Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate i/by Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate for Petitioners, Mr. V. P. Deshmukh, and Mr. S. V.Deshmukh, learned Advocates for Respondent No.3 in respectivepetitions and Dr. Bharaswadkar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and2. By consent of the parties, the petitions are taken for final disposal. 2.Since the facts are identical and issues are common in thesewrit petitions, they are taken together for the purpose of discussion, thefacts are taken from WP/1077/2007.3.The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer todeclare the land acquisition proceedings dated 18.12.2006 in respect ofGut No.128, admeasuring 52R, situated at village Tisgaon, Tal. and Dist. ( 3 ) WP-744-2007+2Aurangabad, as cancelled. Later on, a prayer was added to declare theproceedings of land acquisition have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and to declare that thedeclaration dated 10.12.1998 under Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashedand set aside. 4.The petitioners purchased the land admeasuring 74R fromGut No.113 situated at Village Tisgaon Dist. Aurangabad. By order dated09.09.1986, The Collector, Aurangabad, granted N.A. permission infavour of the petitioners. The petitioners started the business of a stonecrusher on the said land. On 16.04.1992, the Draft Development Planwas published in the Government Gazette by CIDCO, wherein the landowned by the petitioners was shown for widening road. The proposal foracquisition of the lands was submitted on 02.08.1996. The Special LandAcquisition Office came to be appointed. On 04.08.1998, a notificationunder Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning ( 4 ) WP-744-2007+2Act (hereinafter referred to as, “MRTP”) read with Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act came to be issued. On 24.09.1998, it was stated that thenotification came to be published in the newspaper namely, daily“Ajanta” and on 25.09.1998, the notification under Section 6 also cameto be published in the urdu newspaper namely, daily “Raheber”. TheNotification also came to be published in the Government Gazette on10.12.1998. It was further stated that the notification was published innewspaper namely, daily “Lokmat”. However, no such notification ispublished in newspaper namely, daily “Lokmat”. A panchnama wasshown to be prepared by pasting Section 6 notification on 12.12.1998. Itwas stated that the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Actcame to be issued and panchnama came to be executed to that effect. On14.08.2001, a Draft Development Plan came to be sanctioned by theGovernment. On 07.02.2002, a notification by way of rectification cameto be published in the Government Gazette and the same was publishedin the newspaper daily “Sanjiwarta”. An award came to be passed on18.12.2006 acquiring 54R land of the petitioners from Gut No.113. On23.12.2006, the petitioners received a notice under Section 12(2) of the ( 5 ) WP-744-2007+2Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that it is only on that, the petitionerslearned about the acquisition proceeding. The petitioners, therefore,replied to the notice on 25.12.2006, stating that no earlier notice ofdeclaration was received and that they had no knowledge. On08.01.2007, the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)published corrigendum correcting the name of newspaper, in whichnotice under Section 6 was published as daily “Lokmat” instead of daily“Ajanta”. On 18.01.2007, a representation was made by the petitionersto the Administrator, CIDCO stating that he is ready to give the land fora service road. However, other reservation of the land be deleted. On12.02.2007, the petitioners filed a writ petition No.1077/2007 in whichCIDCO filed its reply and produced on record publication of Section 6notification in the newspapers daily “Ajanta”. This Court dismissed thesaid petition on 05.03.2007. The petitioners filed SLP bearingNo.8859/2007 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apexgranted leave and decided Civil Appeal No.2559/2013 and remandedthe matter back to this Court. The petitioners have now filed additionalaffidavit on record by annexing notification dated 17.09.2014 issued by ( 6 ) WP-744-2007+2National Highway Authority of India. The petitioners thereafterproduced on record a copy of letter dated 17.01.2001 issued byAdministrator, CIDCO in which again reference was only to thenewspaper daily “Rahebar”.5.Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing forPetitioners, mainly argued that there is no compliance with Section 6 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, as the publication was not made in two widelycirculated newspapers in the locality and no public notice was given atconvenient place in the locality. The procedure under Section 6(2) of theLand Acquisition Act is not followed. Though it was stated that noticewas published in daily “Lokmat”, in fact, it was published in some othernewspaper, and now the name of the newspaper is shown as “Ajanta” ofwhich no copy is produced. The notice under Section 6(1) was publishedin the Official Gazette on 10.12.1998 whereas the publication in thenewspapers is made much before i.e. in the month of September 1998.No public notice of declaration is given at a convenient place in thelocality. The panchnama dated 12.12.1998, showing that the notice was ( 7 ) WP-744-2007+2pasted at a convenience place, is fabricated. He thus submits that theproceedings itself deserves to be declared as without following dueprocess of law, and therefore, as bad in law. In the alternative, it issubmitted that the earlier proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act islapsed in view of Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act. He further submitsthat, there is also non-compliance of the procedure under Section 13-Aof the Land Acquisition Act. The learned SLAO replaced the name ofnewspaper clearly showing non-compliance with the prescribedprocedure. He submits that, when the petitioners are running thebusiness in the premises, still there was no notice or knowledge given tothem at any point of time. So far as WP/744/2007 is concerned, hesubmits that the petitioners are ready to give the land withoutcompensation. However, his business be kept alive. 6.In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate reliedupon the following judgments:(i)Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) By LRs. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors.1;1(2007) 5 SCC 85 ( 8 ) WP-744-2007+2(ii)Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryanana and Anr.2;(iii) Bhausaheb Tavnappa Mahajan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.3;(iv)State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Abdul Ali and Ors.4;(v)Naresh Kumar and Ors. VS. Government (NCT of Delhi)5;(vi)Annapurna Shamrao Thaokar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.6.7.Learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, appearing forRespondent No.3-CIDCO, vehemently argued the petitions. He submitsthat the petitions deserve to be dismissed. In the present case, theacquisition of the lands was under Section 126 of the MRTP Act and notunder the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The judgments relied uponby the petitioner would not be applicable. There is every compliancemade of the procedure. He submits the Writ Petition No.1077/2007 wasdismissed earlier and that, by way of remand, the Hon’ble Apex Courtremanded the matter back only on a particular point and therefore, noother argument can now be considered. Now, the petitioners cannotargue beyond the terms of remand. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by its order,2(2007) 3 SCC 4703[1982 Mh.L.J. 229]4(2017) 3 SCC 1085(2019) 9 SCC 41662012 (5) Mh.L.J. 309 ( 9 ) WP-744-2007+2had remanded the matter only on point of compliance of Section 6(2) ofthe Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the petition is required to bedecided only on that question. So far as other questions are concerned,those are disputed questions of fact. 8.Learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Deshmukh further submits thatthe learned SLAO, by corrigendum, had only corrected typographicalmistakes. So far as publication in the Gazette under Section 6(1) of thesaid Act is concerned, there is no dispute that it was published in dailynewspaper namely, “Rahebar” which itself is sufficient and would be asubstantial compliance. The mistake is only in respect of date and thename of the newspaper. From the pleadings, it is seen that thepetitioners had knowledge about the Draft Development Plan on16.04.1992. So far as Section 13-A is concerned, he submits that there isno correction in the award as such, and therefore, the rights of thepetitioners are not prejudicially affected. The possession of the land isalready taken long back. Nothing remains to be decided now. There isalready a panchnama drawn, showing that the notices were pasted at ( 10 ) WP-744-2007+2the conspicuous place in the locality. He thus prays for rejection of thewrit petitions. Learned Advocate Mr. V. P. Deshmukh, learned Advocateappearing for Respondent No.3 in WP/744/2007, also adopted theargument of learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Deshmukh. 9.The fact of possession is disputed by learned SeniorAdvocate. He submits that the petitioners are still carrying business ontheir land. He further submits that the affidavit is not filed by learnedSLAO but filed by CIDCO. The CIDCO may not have knowledge aboutthe actual taking of possession, and therefore, the same need not beconsidered. 10.In the case of Kunwar Pal Singh (supra), the Hon’ble ApexCourt held that the publication of declaration under Section 6(2) isnecessary and must be made in all the three modes of publicationspecified under the section and cannot be waived. It was further heldthat when a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing theparticular act, then such act must be done in the same manner. ( 11 ) WP-744-2007+211.In the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. (supra), it is held thatthe provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are beneficialprovision considering the interest of the land owners. The provisionstherefore should be considered having regard to the purport and intentof the Act. 12.In the case of Bhausaheb Tavnappa Mahajan and Ors.(supra), is in respect of publication of notification in newspaper underSection 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee(Regulation) Act. 13.In the case of State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Abdul Ali and Ors.(supra), it is held that no correction in the notification under Section4(1) or the declaration under Section 6 can be made under Section 13-Aof the Land Acquisition Act. The correction is limited only to correct theclerical mistakes in the award and that too within six months. 14.In the case of Naresh Kumar and Ors.(supra), the Hon’bleApex Court again considered the provisions of Section 13-A and held ( 12 ) WP-744-2007+2that it is not permissible to review the award. Only clerical andarithmetical errors in the award can be corrected within six months andnot beyond that period.15.In the case of Annapurna Shamrao Thaokar and Anr.(supra), is also under the Land Acquisition Act. This Court finds that inview of arguments of learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, presently,the acquisition proceedings is under MRTP Act and not under the LandAcquisition Act, where the object is different and the provisions of LandAcquisition Act are not strictly applicable. 16.Learned Advocate Mr. S. V. Deshmukh relied upon thejudgment in the case of Eknath Punjaji Nawale Vs. State of Maharashtraand Ors.7 The said judgment is delivered specifically considering theprovisions of MRTP Act. Paragraph No.35 of the said judgment reads asunder:“35.Even assuming that a declaration is required to be made in two local newspapers, the question is, whether on failure to do so, the acquisition is vitiated. In the7[2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 94 ( 13 ) WP-744-2007+2case of Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A. Vs. J. Sivaprakasam andOrs. [(2011) 1 SCC 330], the Apex Court has considered the similar requirement,incorporated in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1894, of publication ofthe notification in two news papers having circulation in the locality. The Apex Courtheld that the requirement is of publishing notification in two news papers havingreasonably wide circulation. However, in paragraph 36 of the said judgment the ApexCourt has held thus :- “36. It is significant to note that there is no averment in the writ petition thatthe respondents were not aware of the proposed acquisition. It is evident thatthey were aware of the notification. It is also inconceivable that Respondents5 to 11 who knew about the proposed acquisition would not have informedRespondents 1 to 4 about the proposed acquisition. Be that as it may.Therefore, even if the publication in two regional language news papers isconsidered to be not in compliance with the requirements of Section 4(1), itcannot affect the validity of the preliminary notification or the consequentialproceedings in regard to Survey Nos. 186/1 and 186/2."17. Mr. S. V. Deshmukh also relied upon the judgment passed bythis Court in WP/10217/2014. The said judgment is delivered by thisCourt very recently. The batch of such writ petitions was also in respectof very same acquisition and identical set of facts and the groundswherein this Court has dismissed the writ petition. This Court in thesaid judgment has already considered even in the judgment in the caseof Eknath Nawale (supra), and dismissed the petition. 18.This Court thus finds that no case is made out calling forinterference at the hands of this Court. The writ petitions, therefore, ( 14 ) WP-744-2007+2stand dismissed with no order as to costs.19.Rule stands discharged. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.][KISHORE C. SANT, J.]1.At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays forinterim relief to continue for a period of six weeks.2.Since the interim relief is continued since long, the same becontinue for a period of six weeks from today.[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.][KISHORE C. SANT, J.]D.A.ETHAPE