WP 7114/07 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7114/2007 Gram Panchayat Village Tawashigad, Tq.Lohara Dist.Osmanabad, through Sarpanch Shri Mangesh Gangadhar Patil, age 35 yrs., occu.agri., & social work r/o Tawashigad Tq.Lohara Dist.Osmanabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Collector, Osmanabad. 3] Special Land Acquisition Officer, Manjra Project, Osmanabad. 4] Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad. Dist.Osmanabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.B. Choudhary, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent no.4. ..... WP 7114/07 - 2 - CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE: 13.01.2011 PER COURT : 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] This writ petition in the nature of public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for construction of percolation tank at village Tawashigad. The challenge is on three grounds, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, on the ground that the land of the Grampanchayat is acquired for construction of the percolation tank; secondly, construction of the tank is not in interest of the villagers; and thirdly, the notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not published in the manner provided under Sub-section (2) thereof. 3] We have perused the material, to which our attention was specifically invited to by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the grounds of challenge. The Collector, Osmanabad, has filed affidavit in reply on 7.3.2009 and additional affidavit in reply on 17.7.2009. The Collector in the additional affidavit, filed on 17.7.2009, has clearly stated that the land of the Grampanchayat is not acquired for the construction of the percolation tank. The first ground of challenge thus WP 7114/07 - 3 - deserves to be rejected outright. We then examined the next ground of challenge as to whether the procedure for issuance of the notification u/s 6 of the Act was followed. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that the notification u/s 6 was not published in the manner provided under the Act. In support of this contention, our attention was invited by learned counsel for the petitioner to the certificates issued by the Talathi and the Gram Sevak. Both the certificates state that the notifications were not read / published in the village Chawadi. The certificate issued by the Talathi states that the notification was never received by their office for its reading in Chawadi. We have perused the additional affidavit in reply filed by the Collector, Osmanabad and more particularly paras 11 & 12 thereof. The Collector has stated that the notification u/s 6 was published in the official gazette and in two newspapers viz. Dainik Marathwada Kesari on 21.1.2006 and Dainik Kuldaiwat on 13.1.2006. It is further stated that it was also published in village Tawashigad on 28.2.2006 and the Talathi had sent a report in respect thereof with panchanama to the Tahsildar as required under the provisions of the Act. The affidavit further states that the certificates issued by the Talathi so also by Gram Sevak dated 19.6.2006 and 13.9.2007 respectively are not correct and they are false and bogus documents. The additional affidavit was filed on 17.7.2009 and copy thereof was served on the Advocate for the petitioner in July, 2009 itself. The petitioner has not controverted the statements made by the Collector on affidavit by filing any rejoinder till this date. In view thereof, the submission that the notification u/s 6 was not published in the manner in which it is WP 7114/07 - 4 - provided under the Act also deserves to be rejected. 4] We then examined the last contention that construction of the tank is not in the interest of the villagers. There is no dispute that the acquisition proceedings are complete and the award was passed on 28.4.2006. The Collector in para 14 of the additional affidavit dated 17.7.2009 has stated that out of 69 land holders, 66 land holders have accepted the notices u/s 12(2) of the Act and out of 66 land holders, 32 land holders have accepted the compensation amount. Apart from that, our attention was invited to the order passed by this Court on 9.1.2007 in Writ Petition No.487/2006 filed by one Maruti Anantrao Ambekar. This writ petition was filed for similar reliefs and this Court, after considering the similar grounds of challenge, dismissed the said writ petition holding that it is necessary to construct dam in the said area. It is also clear from the record that technical clearances were obtained by the acquiring agency for the construction of percolation tank, and after having satisfied about its necessity in the interest and for the benefit of the people at large, the decision to construct was taken by the respondents. In the circumstances, even this ground of objection also deserves to be rejected. 5] In the result, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (R.M. BORDE, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.) ndk/131117