AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.98 OF 2007 Smt. Jaywanti Harischandra Karve, adult, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Sanpada, Sector – 5, Taluka & District Thane, Maharashtra. ) ) ) ) ... Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra. ) 2 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ulhas Valley Project (II), Thane at present the charge held by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Thane, Dist. Thane. ) ) ) ) ) 3 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, a body corporate established by the Government of Maharashtra under MIDC Act, 1961 having its regional office at Mahape, Millenium Business Park, Sector 1, Building No.2, Mahape, Navi Mumbai, and a branch office at Orient House, 5th floor, Adi Marzban Road, Mumbai – 400 038. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AJN 2 4 Herdillia Chemicals Limited, (now known as Schenectady Herdillia Limited) a Company having its registered office at Air India Building, 13th floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai. ) ) ) ) ) ) .... Respondents Mr. R.P. Lote for the petitioner. Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for the State. Ms. Deepa Chavan i/b Navdeep Vora & Associates for respondent 3. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT RESERVED : 22ND JANUARY, 2008. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : ___ JANUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that the notices/notifications dated 13/4/1972 issued under section 32(1) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short, “the said Act”) for acquisition of Gut No.141 at Village Bosari, Taluka and District Thane (for AJN 3 convenience, “the said lands”) be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed that order dated 31/10/1969 issued by the respondents for taking possession of the said lands and subsequent Award passed in respect of the said lands dated 23/7/1978 be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the surplus lands out of the said lands remaining unutilized be directed to be re-vested in the petitioner along with her brothers. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner' s deceased father Nathu Patil and his brother Srawan Patil owned lands at Village Bosari. There was a suit for partition in which land admeasuring 2-32-10 AGA as shown in the sketch annexed to the petition, was assigned to the share of the petitioner's deceased father Nathu. 3. The State Government acquired the said lands under the provisions of the said Act on 10/4/1972. The notice of acquisition of the said lands under section 32(1) of the said Act issued on 10/4/1972 was published in the Official Gazette on 13/4/1972. By AJN 4 operation of section 32(4) of the said Act, the said lands vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. According to the petitioner, as per section 39(2) of the said Act, if the State Government/Corporation sells or transfers the said lands, it has to offer it to the petitioner in the first instance. The petitioner's case is that the State Government/Corporation sold and transferred the said lands to Herdillia Chemicals Limited (for convenience, “the said Herdillia”). But the said Herdillia did not develop the said lands owned by the petitioner's joint family, for industrial purposes, till today. The petitioner through other heirs, suo moto, approached respondent 3 – Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (for convenience, “the Corporation”) with a request that they should offer to the petitioner and other heirs six plots of 100 sq. mtrs. each for their industry M. Steel Fabrication. The Corporation agreed to sell them the said lands at the price of Rs.600/- per sq. mtr. but later on demanded a higher price, thus, virtually rejecting the petitioner's request. According to the petitioner, this is in clear breach of section 39(2)(a) of the said Act. AJN 5 4. The petitioner' s further case is that the said Herdillia has unauthorizedly and illegally transferred the said lands to some third parties. A notice dated 27/1/2006 was, therefore, addressed on behalf of the petitioner and other heirs. However, the Corporation did not reply to the same for a long time. The petitioner, therefore, addressed another letter dated 20/2/2006 under the Right to Information Act calling upon the Corporation to supply to them some more information. On 10/3/2006, the Corporation gave certain information. The petitioner learnt that originally plot No.2 was allotted to the said Herdillia. Subsequently, it was divided into two parts i.e. plot Nos.2/1 and 2/2. Plot No.2/1, which came to the share of the petitioner and her brother was sub-divided into six parts out of which plot Nos.2/1B and 2/1C are transferred to M/s. Subh Shanti Services Limited. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Government/Corporation did not observe or follow the provisions of the said Act in general i.e. section 32(1) to section 32(9) and section 39(2) and 42-A(4) in particular for the purpose of AJN 6 acquisition of the said lands and unauthorizedly and illegally passed order dated 10/4/1972 under section 32(1) of the said Act acquiring the said lands and order dated 31/10/1969 passed under section 32(5) for taking possession thereof. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court for the abovementioned reliefs. 6. We have heard, at some length, Mr. Lote, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the respondents erred in disregarding the provisions of the said Act. This has rendered the entire land acquisition proceedings null and void. He submitted that the respondents erred in failing to offer the plots of the acquired lands to the petitioner and the other heirs in the first instance as required by section 39(2)(a) of the said Act. He also drew our attention to section 42A of the said Act. He submitted that the respondents erred in not offering the said lands which were left unutilized for more than 5 years to the petitioner's joint family and/or other industries as required by section 42A(4). He, therefore, submitted that the entire land acquisition proceedings be set aside and, in any case, the respondents be directed to give a AJN 7 portion of the unutilized lands to the petitioners. 7. We have also heard Ms. Chavan, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. She has taken us to the affidavit of Mr. Suresh Bhosale, Area Manager of the Corporation, which we have carefully perused. We have also perused the affidavit of Ms. Prabhavathi Saluke, Special Land Survey Officer, Ulhas Valley Project, Thane. 8. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief because the petition suffers from gross latches. The petitioner is seeking quashing of notification dated 10/4/1972 issued under section 32(1) of the said Act and order dated 31/10/1969 in respect of possession of the said lands. The challenge is raised after a period of 35 years. The Award was passed way back on 23/7/1978 quantifying the amount payable for the acquisition of the said lands. The petitioner's father and his brother have already accepted the amount of compensation as owners of the said lands. After the Award is passed and compensation is accepted by the AJN 8 owners, a belated challenge to the acquisition cannot be entertained. We must also note that the petitioner's brothers and her uncle Sravan Patil had filed Writ Petition No.6294 of 2006 in this court in respect of Gut No.141. It was claimed in that petition that the unutilized lands have not been returned to the petitioners. A Division Bench of this court considered the provisions of section 39 of the said Act. It recorded that the Corporation is not intending to sell the said lands. The petition was dismissed holding that the provisions of section 39 of the said Act are not applicable to the facts of that case. The said judgment and order pertains to Gut No.141. It, therefore, clearly covers the petitioner' s case. It was therefore, not open to the petitioner to raise the same challenge again. On this ground also, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. It appears from the affidavit of Mr. Suresh Bhosale, Area Manager of the Corporation that the said lands have been acquired under the provisions of the said Act and are vested in the State Government way back on 10/4/1972. The said lands have been handed over by the State Government to the Corporation. The AJN 9 said lands form part of the larger area of 2333.27 hectors constituting Trans Thane Creek Industrial Area (for short, “the TTC”). As per the layout of the TTC, Industrial area of the said lands is forming part of various plots which have been allotted by the Corporation to Hindustan Petroleum, the said Herdilla's proposed Truck Terminals, etc. 10. The affidavit further discloses that about 14,707.0 sq. mtrs. from Gut No.141 is falling within the Plot No.2/1 allotted to M/s. Schenectady Herdillai Ltd., (originally Plot No.2) was allotted to M/s. Herdillai Chemicals Ltd., and subsequently it was sub-divided into two parts namely Plot No.2/1 and Plot No.2/2. The Plot No.2/1 remained with Herdillai Chemical Ltd. which is now known as M/s. Schenectady Herdillai Ltd., and Plot No.2/2 is held by Unimers India Ltd., formally known as M/s. Herdillai Unimers Ltd. 11. It is further stated that as per order dated 11/4/2002 passed by this court, the Plot held by M/s. Herdilla Chemicals Ltd., now known as M/s. Schenectady Herdilla Ltd., was sub-divided into six AJN 10 (6) parts out of which two (2) sub-divided parts namely 2/1B and 2/1C have been transferred in favour of M/s. Shubh Shanti Services Ltd., for Industrial purposes. Part of the Gut No.141 which was originally falling within Plot No.2/1 now falls in plot transferred to M/s. Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. Thus, Gut No.141 which was acquired by the State Government and handed over to the Corporation is a part of the layout of TTC Industrial Area and has been utilized for various Industrial purposes and activities. 12. The affidavit further states that as per Land Disposal Regulations of the Corporation, the plots are allotted by the Corporation to various allottees on lease and not by way of sale. It is further stated that the Corporation has no intention to sell the said lands. 13. In view of the above, in our opinion, section 39(2)(a) and section 42A of the said Act are not attracted to the present case, at all. In any case, as stated by us, it is not possible for us to entertain the challenge to the acquisition after 35 years particularly, AJN 11 when the Award is passed and the compensation has been taken by the land owners. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]