FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Vinod P. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Tiwari, Advocate for intervenors. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 22ND NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner allegedly in public interest. The petitioner has sought a prayer directing the respondent authorities to take immediate steps for acquisition of land bearing Gat No. 284 and 287 for the purpose of rehabilitation. 2] It is the contention of the petitioner that, though initially Gat Nos. 284 and 287 was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of extension of Gaothan, the respondent authorities, at the behest of one Shri Eknath Khadse, who happens to be the Leader of the Opposition in Maharashtra, have changed the proposal and are proposing to acquire some other land. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] It is further the case of the petitioner that this has been done so as to favour one Shri Madhukar Tukaram Choudhari and Shri Keshav Govind Mahajan, who, according to the petitioner had approached this court, challenging the acquisition of their land, which challenge has failed. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said case, the State Government, in an affidavit in reply, had stated that land in Gat Nos. 284 and 287 was the most suitable land and as such, there is no occasion for the respondents to have changed the proposal. 4] Taking into consideration the fact that the issue involved pertains to the resettlement of project affected persons, who are required to be resettled on account of their houses being submerged, we had called for the original files. Perusal of both the files would reveal, as way as back on 9th May, 2007, the Executive Engineer, Drawings Division, Jalgaon had informed the District Rehabilitation Officer, that the land Gat Nos. 284 and 287 was at a considerable distance from the first and second stage of Gaothan. It has been stated that though there were various lands available adjacent to the village, the proposal to acquire the land Gat Nos. 284 and 287 does not appear to be proper. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 5] No doubt, in Writ Petition No. 1404 of 2008, the State Government has filed an affidavit justifying the suitability of land Gat Nos. 284 and 287. However, we cannot ignore a specific letter written, as way as back in 2007, objecting the feasibility of land Gat Nos 284 and 287. It is further pertinent to note that the Village panchayat itself has now passed a resolution, stating therein that the land survey Nos. 284 and 287 is not a suitable land and has proposed that land Gat No. 465/1, 465/2, 466 and 471 is suitable for the purpose of extension of Gaothan. 6] It is further to be noted that a spot visit has been made by the Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Project, who is respondent NO.5 herein, and the S.D.O. Bhusawal and Tahsildar, Raver. A panchanama has been prepared in the presence of 5 residents of the village. A true translated version of the spot inspection, is as under :- “(1) As on today, the land bearing Gat Nos. 284 and 287 are being utilized for agricultural purposes wherein crops of Cotton, Turmeric, Maize and Babanas have been cultivated FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 (2)Lands bearing Gat Nos. 284 and 287 are comparatively far away from the present gaothan, than lands bearing Gat Nos. 465/1,465/2 and 471 which are proposed for acquisition by the Gram panchayat vide its resolution. (3) Similarly, even considering the geographical proximity, from the existing Gaothan, the lands bearing Gat Nos. 465/1, 465/2 and 471 which are proposed for acquisition are more proximate than land Gat Nos. 284 and 287. (4)Similarly, lands bearing Gat Nos. 466,467,468,470 which are adjacent to Gat Nos. 465/1, 465/2 and 471 are non-agricultural lands and geographically more proximate to the existing Gaothan. However, lands adjacent to Gat Nos. 284 and 287 have not been converted to Non agricultural use, so also, they are not proximate from the existing Gaothan. (5) Similarly, electric main line and electric poles have passed through land Gat Nos. 284 and 287 from East-West and South-North, FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 5 intersecting each other. (6) While searching, as to whether there are any suitable lands for rehabilitation purpose in the except the lands, it has been found that land Gat Nos. 466, 467, 468 and 470 are adjacent and closer to the village. However, while making the spot inspection of these lands, it has been found that the said lands have already been converted into non-agricultural lands and on most of the plots it is found that either construction is already made or it is going on. (7)Similarly, when making spot inspection of land Gat Nos. 663/1 and 663/2, it is found that the said lands in the low lying areas and in case water level of the Tapi river increases, the said lands are submerged and water accumulates in them. Similarly, it has been found that a water flow/stream (Nallah) runs very close to the said lands.” 7] It can thus be clearly seen that the authorities as well as the persons who have drawn the panchahama have found that FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 6 the land Gat Nos. 465/1,465/2,466 and 471 is geographically more proximate to the existing Gaothan, as compared to Gat Nos. 284 and 287. It has further been found that lands adjacent to Gat Nos. 465/1,465/2, 466 and 471 (i.e. Lands Gat Nos. 466,467,468 and 470) have already been converted to be used for NA purpose. However, it has been found that the lands adjacent to Gat Nos. 284 and 287 are not yet converted to be used for NA purpose. Apart from that, it has been found that in Gat Nos. 284 and 287, there are cross electrical main lines which pass from East to West and South to North intersecting each other and as such, the said land is not suitable for the purpose of Gaothan. 8] While examining the correctness or otherwise of an administrative action, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is concerned only with the decision making process and not the ultimate decision. Law on the point is very well laid down by the Apex Court, in the matter of “Tata Cellular Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others” reported in (1994)6 SCC 651, wherein, the Apex Court has observed in para. No. 77, as under :- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 7 “The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesday unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind28, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention". FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 8 9] It can thus be seen that, what is permissible for this court to be examined is, as to whether the action of the respondents is rational, reasonable or whether it is arbitrary or activated with malafides. It is not permissible for us to go into the sufficiency of reasons. 10] The reasoning given in the spot panchanama that the land Gat nos. 465/1, 465/2, 466 and 471 are more proximate to the existing Gaothan than Gat Nos. 284 and 284; and that the lands adjacent to Gat Nos. 284 and 287 are not being used for NA purpose; and that two electrical main lines transgress through Gat Nos. 284 and 287, cannot be said to be irrational, unreasonable or arbitrary, while finding that land Gat Nos. 465/1,465/2, 466 and 471 are more suitable than Gat Nos. 284 and 287. In so far as the allegations of malafides are concerned, neither the said person against whom malafides are sought to be attributed is made a party respondent, nor any specific allegations are made in the petition against him. In that view o fthe matter, we are not inclined to give any weightage to the oral submissions made at the Bar in that regard. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2011 "Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti, Tandalwadi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 9 11] Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, we do not find that the act of the respondents is either arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational, so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ petition is dismissed. Needless to mention that the interim relief shall stand vacated. 12] At this stage, Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are poor persons, who are fighting for their rehabilitation since 1980. We, therefore, direct the respondent authorities to take necessary steps for rehabilitation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, and ensure that they are rehabilitated, in any event, within one year from today. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-