1 W.P. 1922/1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1922 OF 1996 Vidya Vikas Mandal & Oths. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.R.Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent no. 3. ............................ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 12/07/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings in respect of G.No. 28-A-B situated at Sakri, Dist. Dhule. 2. The petitioners were the tenants of the premises. But the said land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the State Transport Bus depot. The petitioners have approached this Court after the declaration U/s 6 of the Land Acquisition was made by the Commissioner. 2 W.P. 1922/1996 3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the enquiry U/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was held without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and another V/s The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and another reported in AIR 1976 – Supreme Court – 2095, the land acquisition proceedings are not tenable in law. 4. In the facts of the present case, it can clearly be seen that after the declaration of Section 4 Notification, declaration U/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by the Commissioner on 6/5/1981. A categorical statement has been made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that in the 5-A enquiry, an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as well as the owners and the affected persons. This statement on affidavit filed by the Officer on behalf of the State has not been countered. Apart from it, it is also to be noted that notice U/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to the persons concerned in the year 1981 itself. 5. It is further to be noted that the petitioner had also approached the Civil Court by way of R.C.S. No. 1 of 1990. While the 3 W.P. 1922/1996 petitioner’s claim was pending before the Civil Court for grant of interim relief, the petitioner has approached this Court without waiting for the out-come of the said Suit. It is further to be noted that though the Award is passed in the year 1986, the present petition came to be filed in the year 1990. No explanation was given as to why the petition was filed at such a belated stage. We, therefore, find that the petition is without merit. In so far as the Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, no doubt it is settled law that in 5-A proceedings, an opportunity of hearing has to be given. However, in view of categorical statement given by the responsible Officer of the State Govt. that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, owners and the affected persons and the same is not countered by the petitioner, we are left with no alternative but to accept the statement of the said Officer that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that there is an interim order operating in favour of the petitioner since 1990. From the perusal of the Order dated 13/1/2010, it appears that the petition is restored. However, it is not 4 W.P. 1922/1996 clear from the order dated 13/1/2010 as to whether the interim relief is also restored or not. However, since according to Mr. Patil, the students are residing in the hostel which is on the land in question, we direct that the status-quo as on today shall be maintained for the period of six weeks from today. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1922.1996