1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No.6110 OF 2010 (M/s Abdul Hussain Mulla Alabuxji ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Mahesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.W. Sambre, G.P. for respondent No.1, Shri A.M. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM:- D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED :- 09-03-2011 Heard Shri Mahesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Shri A.M. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of establishment of toll center/plaza on the land bearing Survey No.2-A/1 and 2-A/6 belongs to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the acquisition proceedings are initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and as per the provisions of Section 3C, any person who is aggrieved by the issuance of the land acquisition proceedings, is entitled to submit his objection within twenty-one days from the 2 date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A. It is further submitted that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 3C of the said Act, the authorities are also under an obligation to give opportunity of hearing to the objector before passing order on objection. 3. It is submitted that in the instant case, though the petitioner has objected to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents vide objection dated 18/8/2010, the respondents ignored the same and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, taken further steps under the provisions of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 as well as Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have brought to our notice that the objection dated 18/8/2010 was not received by respondent No.1 at all except the reminder issued by the petitioner dated 22/9/2010 and therefore, in view of provisions of Section 3C (1) and (2) of the said Act, question of considering the same and giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner does not arise. It is further submitted that further steps in view of provisions of the said Act are already taken by the respondents. 3 5. In the instant case, there are no mala fides alleged by the petitioner against the respondents. In absence of allegations or mala fides against the respondents, there is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the categorical statements made at three places in the affidavit filed by the respondents that the said objection dated 18/8/2010 was not received by them. Even otherwise, this is a disputed question of fact and this Court undoubtedly cannot go into it. 6. The provisions of Section 3C of the said Act though permit the interested person who is aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 to file an objection before the authority concerned, however the said objection is required to be filed within a period of twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A.. 7. We have considered the contention canvased by the parties. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the last date of submission of objection was 22/9/2010. As per the specific stand taken by the respondents on oath by filing affidavit that they have not received the objection dated 18/8/2010 at all, which the petitioner claims to have forwarded to them Under Certificate of Posting. Under the provisions of Section 3C of the said Act the valid 4 objection would be one which is submitted by the objector within twenty-one days from the date of publication of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A, it is such objector alone would be entitled for opportunity of hearing before passing order on such objection. In the instant case, since the objection of the petitioner dated 18/8/2010 was not received by the respondents, question of giving opportunity of hearing to him does not arise. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 3D of the said Act contemplates that where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified, the competent authority shall, as soon as may submit a report accordingly to the Central government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A. It is brought to the notice of this Court that this exercise has been undertaken by the respondents since the petitioner's objection was not received by the respondents. 9. Sub-section (2) of section 3D of the said Act further contemplates that on the publication of the declaration under sub- section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government 5 free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, action under sub- section (2) of section 3D has been taken by the respondents on 28/10/2010. 10. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma