AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Pursis filed on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1 to 3. None appears on behalf of respondents no.4 and 5, though served.
Rule. By consent heard forthwith.
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the notification dated 27th August, 2010 issued u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act (''The Act'' for short) and also the notification dated 22nd March, 2011 issued u/s 6 of The Act, by which the land of the petitioners bearing Survey Nos.334/3 part and 334/15 part situated at village Verna of Salcete Taluka, has been acquired by respondent no.1. The grievance of the petitioners is that the acquisition is not in public interest and in any case, the objection taken by the petitioners u/s 5A of The Act insofar as the availability of the alternate land is concerned, has not been considered either by the Land Acquisition Officer (''The LAO'' for short) or by the State Government. It is further the grievance of the petitioners in the petition that the acquisition is contrary to guidelines formulated in terms of the circular dated 7th April, 2003.
Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3 submits that respondents no.1 to 3 will have no objection if the notification u/s 6 of The Act is set aside and the LAO is directed to consider the objections taken by the petitioners u/s 5A of The Act and also the objection that acquisition of the land is contrary to Circular dated 7th April, 2003, provided the petitioners waive their right to contend that no fresh notification u/s 6 of The Act can be issued in case Section 6 notification is struck down since the period of one year has already lapsed. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of This Court passed in Writ Petition No.557/2007 dated 27th February, 2008 in which the Division Bench has held that although the State Government is bound by the provisions of Section 6 of The Act laying down the period, a person interested whose land is acquired, is entitled to waive the objection regarding the time-frame prescribed for the purpose of issuance of Section 6 notification of The Act.
The petitioners have filed pursis stating that they will not raise the issue regarding limitation in publishing notification u/s 6 of The Act.
In view of the above, the notification dated 22nd March, 2011 issued u/s 6 of The Act qua the petitioners, is quashed and set aside. The LAO shall consider the objections taken by the petitioners to Section 4 notification and shall also consider the applicability of the guidelines dated 7th April, 2003 and submit a report to the State Government. The State Government shall have liberty to issue fresh notification u/s 6 of The Act, after considering the report in accordance with law and further to proceed in accordance with law. The challenge of the petitioners to Section 4 notification, is kept open. All the other contentions of the petitioners are also kept open. Needless to mention that interim order dated 28th July, 2011 stands vacated.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.