1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3588 OF 2009 Vakil s/o Jagannath Patil @ Bagul... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others.. Respondents. -------- Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Shri. P.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 8. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE: 3rd NOVEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs : 2 (B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents Nos.1 to 4 to initiate civil action for recovery of the compensation paid to the respondents No. 7 and 8 towards acquisition of land Gat Nos.31/1, 31/2 and also to initiate appropriate criminal action as permissible in law and for that purpose issue necessary orders. (C) Direct respondents No.1 to 4 to appoint a high level enquiry committee to enquire the involvement of the then revenue officers, Irrigation Department Officers and land acquisition officer who were involved in manipulating the Government record so as to enable the respondents No.7 and 8 to obtain compensation at an inflated rate, to which they were not entitled and after inquiry, if the officers involved or are found guilty in the inquiry, appropriate legal action be taken against them. 3) The learned counsel Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi submitted that the conduct of the officers concerned who were involved in acquisition of the concerned land is required to be investigated, enquired into and appropriate stern action should be taken for acquiring lands Gat Nos.31/1 and 31/2 of village Satare, Taluka Sindhkeda, District Dhule of respondents Nos.7 3 and 8. In the submission of the counsel land Gat Nos.31/1 and 31/2 are not part of the submergence zone and, therefore, the State was not under obligation to acquire those lands. In spite of the same, the said lands were acquired and compensation was paid allegedly to benefit respondent Nos.7 and 8. The counsel submitted that questions were raised in the Legislative Assembly and under the orders issued by the Hon'ble Minister a committee was constituted for submitting report. The Committee submitted report accordingly which is at page 114 of the paper book. According to the learned counsel the report of the Committee supports the petitioner's contentions. 4) The learned counsel Shri. P.R. Patil appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8 filed affidavit-in-reply. The counsel Shri. P.R. Patil raises serious questions of bona fide on the part of the petitioner. According to the counsel, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground 4 of laches as the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2000 and the present petition is filed in the year 2009. The delay has not at all been explained by the petitioner, according to the learned counsel. By placing reliance on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the learned counsel submits that the Collector had already passed Award. Money has been received by respondent Nos.7 and 8 and a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is pending before the civil Court. Our attention was invited by the learned counsel to an order dated 18th September 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.7553 of 2005. We have perused the same. The learned counsel Shri. Patil, therefore, submits that it is for the Government to decide to continue with the acquisition proceedings or possession of the land. At this stage the petitioner shall not be allowed to raise objections regarding the acquisition proceedings which were initiated strictly in 5 accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 5) The learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri. V.H. Dighe submitted that the lands were acquired in accordance with the procedure established by the Land Acquisition Act. Possession is with the State Government. The award was passed by the Collector and the Reference Petitions are pending. 6) We have perused the necessary documents placed on record, the debate papers relating to the Legislative Assembly proceedings and the report submitted. We find that on 12-9-2003 the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award. The land Gut Nos.31/1 and 31/2 was part of the land acquisition proceedings. It is also admitted fact that the Land Acquisition References under section 18 of the Act are pending before the Civil Court. 6 7) In short, the petitioner's contention is that the land which was not part of the acquisition proceedings was acquired by the State and public money was wasted for the same. True it is, that the petitioner has filed this petition after near about 9 years of the issuance of Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. There are substantial subsequent developments in the matter. Award has been passed and Land Acquisition References under section 18 of the Act are pending in the Civil Court. 8) It is true that the State Government is the best authority under the law to assess public purpose for acquisition land of a citizen. In the facts of the case the petitioner has tried to point out from the map that the land of respondent Nos.7 and 8 did not form part of the submergence zone, therefore, the land ought to have been excluded from the acquisition proceedings. But in the facts of the case and the 7 developments occurred, as stated above, we find that it is for the State and the State authorities to acquire any land or even after initiation of acquisition proceedings delete land from the acquisition proceedings in exercise of powers conferred under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference is required by this Court in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The State Government is at liberty to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to entertain the petition and consider the prayers made. 9) The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 10) By an order dated 18-9-2009 the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of 8 Rs.25,000/- with the Registry of this Court. The petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 25,000/- accordingly. In the facts of the case, we direct that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.5000 be credited to the office of the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee Aurangabad. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.3588.09