State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs. Umashankar Rajabhau
& Ors  INSC 648 (9 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Ahmad Saghir S. (J)
1996 SCC (1) 299 JT 1995 (8) 508 1995 SCALE (6)391
O R D
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated July 18, 1979 made in Special Civil Application
No.92/75 by the High Court of Bombay.
under Section 4(1) acquiring an extent of about 5 acres of land was published
in the State Gazette on September
17, 1970 for public
purpose, namely, construction of staff quarters for Maharashtra Road Transport
Corporation employees. Declaration under Section 6 was published on July 29, 1971. The award also was made on September 15, 1971. It would appear that respondents
1-3 had purchased three plots of land from Usmanshahi Mills which was under
liquidation through the Official Liquidator on June 17, 1968. But the mutation of their names in the revenue records was
not effected. In consequence, notices could not be issued. They, in turn, sold
these plots to 4th respondent in 1973. A writ petition was filed on December 19, 1974 challenging the validity of the
notification and also the award. The High Court set aside the notification on
the ground that notices as required under law have not been served on
respondents 1- 3.
seen that Section 4(1) does not require the service of the personal notice nor
the one under Section 6 declaration. What is needed to be served in the
locality and the Gazette which have been complied with. As regards the notices
under Section 9 is concerned, it now transpires from the revenue records that
the original owner namely, Usmanshahi Mill was served. Since mutation had not
been effected in the name of respondents 1-3 though purchased prior to the
publication of notification under Section 4(1), they could not be issued
notices as required under Section 9. Notice to the 4th respondent is obviously
impossible, since the award has already been made on September 15, 1971.
purchase thereafter is obviously illegal as it does not bind the State after
the notification under Section 4(1) was published. Under these circumstances,
the High Court was wholly unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of
three plots of land of respondents 1-3.
brought to our notice that after the notification was quashed by the High
Court, no further steps were taken by the Government. It is not necessary since
it is being challenged in the appeal in respect of these three plots. A
submission was made that the Corporation does not need these three plots. A
submission was made that the Corporation does not need these three plots of
lands for the employees. So long as there is no notification published under
Section 48(1) of the Act withdrawing from the acquisition, the Court cannot
take notice of any subsequent disinclination on the part of the beneficiary.
appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. But, in the
circumstances, without costs.
Pages: 1 2