1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 309 OF 2009 Mr. Jaydeep Ashok Bhoir ... Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. M.R.Jhakde for petitioner. Mr. Chavan for respondent No. 3(A) Ms. S.S.Bhende AGP for respondent-State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2009. P.C. 1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that notice of the 2nd phase of Acquisition, dated 9.4.2008 annexed at Exhibit "A” to the petition, be quashed and set aside. 2 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length. He submitted that land acquisition proceedings were initiated 40 years back by the State Government. He submitted that the impugned notice is beyond the purview and scope of Land Acquisition Act because since 1972 no steps were taken by the Collector in pursuance of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondents excluded land of similarly situated persons from acquisition and since the land in question is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner, it should have also been excluded from acquisition. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have submitted representations to the respondents. Learned Counsel made a grievance that the said representations are not considered till date. He submitted that in the circumstances, impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-A. He submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch as, as per the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act ("MIDC Act" for short), once Notification under Section 32(1) of the MIDC Act is issued then the land vests absolutely in the State Government 3 free from all encumbrances and the acquisition process stands completed. We may quote the relevant paragraph of the affidavit of Shri Pandav, Area Manager of respondent No.3-A. “ 7.6 I say that subsequent to the Notice under Section 32(2) of the MID Act and after considering the objections raised by the land owners, if any, the State Government issued notification dated 24.3.2008 under Section 32 (1) of the MID Act acquiring the lands specified in the said notification from Village Pale and Bhonoli. I say that the land belonging to the Petitioner's father Shri Ashok Bhoir at Village Pale has also been acquired under the said Notification under Section 32(1 of the MID Act. I say that according to the Scheme of MID Act once the notification under Section 32(1) is issued then the land vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances and the acquisition process stands completed. Thereafter, the only remedy which is available to the land owner is to claim the compensation in accordance with Section 33 of the MID Act. Annexed hereto and 4 marked as Exhibit "IV" is the copy of the Notification dated 24.3.2008 under Sect5ion 32(1) of the MID Act which was published in Government Gazette dated 27.3.2008. I say that subsequent to the Notification under Section 32(1) of the MID Act the Petitioners father was issued notice calling upon him to hand over the possession of acquired land. One such notice has been annexed at page 21 of the Petition. I say that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has thereafter taken possession of the acquired lands belonging to petitioners father by drawing panchanama.” 4. In view of the above assertion made on oath, it is not possible for us to entertain the petition. However, insofar as the representation of the petitioner is concerned, learned Counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner will submit a fresh detailed representation to the Principal Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. If such a representation is made, the Principal Secretary, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai shall consider the same independently and in 5 accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of its consideration. 5. Petition is accordingly disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A.SAYED, J.]