{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1485 OF 2009 1. Jivram Zipru Mahajan R/o Chorwad, Tq-Raver Dist-Jalgaon 2. Yashwant Ukhardu Dane R/o Shahapur, Tq-Shahapur Dist-Burhanpur (MP) 3. Rambhau Ukhardu Mahajan R/o Loni, Tq-Burhanpur Dist-Burhanpur (MP) 4. Sadashiv Somji Patil R/o Loni, Tq-Burhanpur Dist-Burhanpur (MP) 5. Bhagwat Sonji Patil R/o Loni, Tq-Burhanpur Dist-Burhanpur (MP) 6. Dattatraya Ramu Patil R/o Tandalwadi, Tq-Raver Dist-Jalgaon 7. Sushilabai Jivram Mahajan R/o Chorwad, Tq-Raver Dist-Jalgaon 8. Sushilkumar Gopikrushna Chabdiya R/o Shivkumar Chowk, Raj Ghat Road, Karazbazar Tq-Burhanpur, Dist0Burhanpur (MP) 9. Kshinath Vitthal Mahajan R/o Chorwad, Tq-Raver Dist-Jalgaon PETITIONERS {2} VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik 2. The Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawal Tq-Bhusawal, Dist-Jalgaon RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 15th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 26.12.2008 and to direct respondent No.2 to enquire into the objections raised by the petitioners and to submit report to the State Government / Commissioner. 3. It appears that respondent No.1 has issued a notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27.08.2008 stating that the State {3} Government has decided to acquire land for the purpose of construction of Boarder Check Post. Lands of the petitioners were also included in the notification dated 19.01.2008. It further appears that the petitioners were directed to submit objections and accordingly, the petitioners raised several objections. The petitioners were called for hearing u/s 5-A of the Act. It also appears that on the date of hearing, the petitioners convinced respondent No.2 that the land is not suitable for construction of the Check Post. The petitioners have also submitted their written arguments. It further appears that respondent No.2 rejected the objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners have alleged that respondent No.2 has not performed his duty, as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The said order of respondent No.2 dated 26.12.2008 rejecting objections of the petitioners is impugned in the present petition. 4. On notice being issued, the respondents appeared and filed affidavit in reply. It is not disputed that notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and the petitioners were directed to submit objections in respect of the said notification. It is contended that the objections were raised by the petitioners, vide application dated 14.10.2008 and thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a notice u/s 5-A of the Act. It is contended that the objections raised by the petitioners were heard by the Sub Divisional Officer and rejected the same. It is also contended that the petitioners were communicated the said decision vide communication dated 26.12.2008, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. {4} 6. For correct appreciation of the law points raised in the present petition, it is necessary to see the provisions of section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as under - “5-A (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub section (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector, or the Land Acquisition Officer, where he has published a notification under sub-section (1) of section 4, in writing and the Collector or, as the case may be, the Land Acquisition Officer, shall give the object or an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government or, as the case may be to the Commissioner such report or reports by the Land Acquisition Officer being made to the State Government or to the Commissioner, if so directed by the State Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the Commissioner. The decisions of the appropriate Government, or as the case may be of the Commissioner on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.” 7. On bare reading of section 5-A (2), quoted above, it is amply {5} clear that the objections raised u/s 1 of section 5-A are to be heard by the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer. In the instant case the objections are heard by the Sub Divisional Officer, who is not competent, as per section 5-A (2) of the Act, to decide the objections raised u/s 5-A (1). Thus, it is clear that the order dated 26.12.2008 is passed without authority, law and jurisdiction and hence the same is nullity in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawal is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Since we have quashed and set aside the impugned order, we remit the matter back to the competent authority, as provided u/s 5-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, to decide the objections raised by the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the writ of this Court. 9. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1485-09