1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6176 OF 2005 1.The Union of India & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.R.G.Raghuvanshi, Asstt. Solicitor General with T.J.Pandian, for Petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent no.1. Mr.R.S.Khadapkar, for Respondents 25, 139 to 142. Mr.Sanjay Thokade, for Respondent no.48. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 18th June, 2008. 2 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the Award made by the Special Land Acquisition officer under the Land Acquisition Act. So far as the challenges on merit viz. in relation to fixation of price of the land by the Land Acquisition officer is concerned, obviously, those are disputed question of facts, and therefore, cannot be gone into by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The next grievance is that the Land Acquisition officer did not give notice to the petitioners for whose benefit the land was acquired, with the result there was no effective representation in the inquiry before the Land Acquisition officer on behalf of the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act. Perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act shows that 3 it does not contemplate a notice being issued to the body for the benefit of which the land is being acquired. The provision permits such an authority to participate in the Inquiry that Land Acquisition officer or the Court is holding. Therefore, because of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act, the petitioners could have participate in the inquiry. Perusal of the record shows that the copies of the objections that were filed by the landholders were supplied to the representative of the petitioners and thereafter, on behalf of the petitioners objection was filed before the Special Land acquisition officer which is dated 24.12.2001. On behalf of the Special Land acquisition officer, there is an affidavit filed. Paragraph 26 of that affidavit is relevant which reads as under:- “26. With reference to Para 20 (a) of the Petition, I say that the notice under Section 50(2) was not issued to the Railway authorities because the provision of Notice under Section 50(2) is only for local authority or company and acquiring body is being the Central Government. The Railway 4 department has full knowledge of 5A and 9(3) (4) enquiries. At the time of aforesaid enquiry the land holders given grievances which is forwarded to the Petitioners and the Petitioners have already given reply on that grievances by letter dt.27.10.2002. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-6 is the copy of letter dt.4.6.2002 issued by the S.L.A.O. No.2 to the Dy.Chief Engineer (Cons). Central Railway, Pune. I further say that the enquiry under Section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, held on 18.6.2002 at Tahsildar office, Barshi. The representative of the Petitioner Shri.Shelke, Deputy Engineer (Construction) was present and he had accepted the copies of reply/objection raised by the Land owners and the said Mr.Shelke had made enquiry about the market rates of the lands acquired and he also asked some questions to the land owners about the rates. He also made further enquiry by re-verifying and examining the facts of the market rate of the land 5 acquired in the year 2001 by S.L.A.O. for railways. No evidence was brought or put forth before the S.L.A.O. in respect of the rates considered and fixed by S.L.A.O. for grant of compensation. Hence, the petitioner/railway now cannot raise all sorts of objection in the present Writ Petition in 2005 for the rates fixed by S.L.A.O. in Award dt.19.12.2003. Thus, the Petitioner/railway had fully participated in the enquiry held by S.L.A.O. under section 9 (3)(4) for fixation of rates. So the Petitioner cannot say he had no notice under Section 50(2) of the said Act in the present writ petition.” Perusal of the above quoted paragraph from the affidavit of the Special Land Acquisition officer shows that there was effective participation in the inquiry by the Deputy Chief Engineer(Construction), Central Railway, Pune. What is further pertinent to be noted is that though this affidavit was filed in the month of September,2005, on behalf of the 6 petitioners there is no rejoinder filed disputing the correctness of the statement made in paragraph (26) quoted above. In view of the material available on record including the affidavit paragraph of which is quoted above, it cannot be said that the Award has been made in breach of either sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act or even in breach of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, on that count no exception can be taken to the Award. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) --- 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.606 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6176 OF 2005 1.Vishwas Arjunrao Barbole & ors. ...Applicants. vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.A.Y.Sakhare i/b. G.S.godbole, for applicants. Mr.R.B.Raghuvanshi, Assistant Solicitor General with T.J.Pandian,for Petitioners in Writ petition. 8 Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.V.Pawaskar, for Respondents 4 to 23, 25 to 34, 51, 56 to 58. Mr.Sanjay Thokade, for Respondent nos.48, 66 to 77, 76, 85 to 112, 113 to 224. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 18th June, 2008. P.C.:- Heard. The applicants are permitted to be intervened in the petition. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---