=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.5582 OF 2000 NO.5582 OF 2000 NO.5582 OF 2000 Chandgad Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Employees Housing Society (Proposed) Ltd., Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur ...Petitioners v/s The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj Division, Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur and others ...Respondents Mr A.Y. Sakhare i/b M/s YKS Legal for Petitioners. Mr V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST 2008 =2= P.C. :- 1. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, the respondent Nos.4 to 8 are permitted to be deleted. 2. This petition is not on board for final hearing. However, by consent of the parties, we have taken it for final hearing. 3. Admittedly, the Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 had been issued on 14th August 2000 acquiring land from gat No.280-A, admeasuring 6 hectares 17 ares, situated at Village Majre-Karve, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur. The petitioners challenged the Notification issued under section 6 of the said Act referred to above. According to the petitioners, Notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued on 28th December 1999 in relation to that land. According to the petitioners, much before that, by a registered sale deed dated 23rd October 1996, one Gajanan Govind Rajadhyaksha, who was the owner of the land, had transferred the land in favour of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, when the said Gajanan Govind Rajadhyaksha was served with a =3= notice under subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act on 5th January 2000, he filed his say before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21st January 2000. In his say, he pointed out that by a registered sale-deed dated 23rd October 1996, he has transferred the land in favour of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, inspite of this information being given, the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not issue any notice to the petitioners under subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act and proceeded to reject the objection raised to the acquisition and section 6 Notification was issued. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that much before the Notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued, interest in the land in favour of the petitioners was created. The fact of creation of interest in favour of the petitioners was communicated to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Inspite of that, another notice was issued to the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that service of individual notice under subsection 1 of section 4 on persons having interest in the land before issuing Notification under section 6 of the said Act is mandatory as decided by the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad v/s State of Bihar, reported (1993) 4 SCC 255. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents. He does not dispute that the =4= information that the land has already been transferred in favour of the petitioners was given to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, but according to him, because the sale of land by the land owner in favour of the petitioners is illegal, it was not necessary to issue individual notices to the petitioners. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides, following can be concluded. The Notification under section 4 for acquisition of land was issued on 28th December 1999. The land in question was transferred by a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 23rd October 1996. Admittedly, notice under subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act was served on the predecessor in title of the petitioners. The predecessor in title of the petitioners informed the Special Land Acquisition officer that he has already transferred the land to the petitioners. In our opinion therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, it was necessary for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to issue individual notice, which would be concluded to be held as valid under section 5-A of the said Act. Notification issued under subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act on the petitioners, in our opinion, vitiates the Notification issued under section 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondents that no notice was required to be issued to the petitioners because in the opinion of =5= the respondents, the sale deed is not valid, is only to be stated to be rejected. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 5. The Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated 14th August 2000 acquiring the land from gat No.280-A, situated at Village Majre-Karve, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur is set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to acquire the land if they are so advised in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)