1 3741 s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3741/2010 Tabaji Sakharam Sanap Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Ms.Deepa Malwankar for petitioner Mr.V.S.Gokhale for Res.1 to 3 Mr.P.P.Chavan i/b Navdeep Vora & Asso.for Res.4 CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR& MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE: 18th NOVEMBER,2010. P.C. . By way of this petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 25/2/2010 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 ,Nashik under section 33(4) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned notice the petitioners were called upon to surrender the land bearing Gat no.1311. It is the say of the petitioners that the land bearing Gat no.1311 is irrigated land. It is the case of the 2 3741 petitioners that there is no justification in acquiring the land bearing Gat no. 1311 under the Land Acquisition Act under acquisition proceeding bearing no. 519/96. It is required to be noted that the land in question is sought to be acquired for the industrial purpose for the benefit of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation . It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the award was declared excluding the land Gat no.1311 and,therefore, there is no question of taking possession of the aforesaid land in question. So far as the question regarding Gat No.1311 is concerned , affidavit in reply has been filed by the Area Manager of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and in paragraph no.2 of the affidavit in reply it is averred as under. “At the outset , I say that the present petition filed for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 25.02.2010 issued under Section 33(4) of the MID Act ,by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 1,Nashik, is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with costs. I say that the petitioner has contended in the Petition that the Petitioner’s lands bearing Survey No.861,865,866,877 and 886 of Village 3 3741 Gulvanch,Taluka Sinnar,District Nashik, had been acquired by the Respondent No.2 lawfully excluding irrigated land bearing Gut No.1311 admeasuring 1 hectare 62 R, for which notice under section 33(4) of the MID Act is issued and the Respondents are illegally asking for the possession without following due process of law. I say that only land bearing Gut Nos.861 and 866 are belong to the Petitioner and the Petitioner is not owner of lands bearing Gut Nos.865,877 and 866 . I say that the said Gut/Survey No.860 to 866 ,866,877 , and 886 of village Gulvanch, Taluka Sinnar were acquired by the State Government in the year 1999 for Industrial Purpose. I say that vide notification dated 02/12/1999 , under section 32(1) of the MID Act, the said lands have vested in State Government free from any encumbrances. I say that somewhere in 2002 , without knowledge and intimation to MIDC proceeding were initiated under the scheme for correction of amalgamation of land bearing Gut No.860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865 and 866 under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation And Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 before the Dy.Director of Land Record, Nashik Region and the Dy.Director of Land Record, Nashik Region, vide his order bearing No.Amal/R.S.S.R.No. 9(Nashik) has sanctioned the Scheme and New Gut No. 1311 has been carved out under the same Scheme from the area of land bearing Gut No.860, 861 ,862, 863, 864,865,and 866 and vide Mutation Entry No.2238 dated 17/02/2010, the New land bearing Gut No.1311 admeasuring 1.62 R is reflected in the Record of Right i.e.7/12 Extract. I say that Gut No.1311 is carved out under the above scheme from the land bearing Gut no. 860,861,862,863, 864 ,865,and 866 and the said lands were already lawfully acquired by the State Govt. in the year 1999 . I say that in view of the aforesaid position it would be clear that there are no merits in the 4 3741 contention of the petitioner that Gut No.1311 has not been acquired. In the circumstances I say and submit that there are no merits in the contentions raised in the above matter and above Petition be dismissed with costs.” 2. It is required to be noted that the Deputy Director of Land Records has also given certificate-Exh.D dated 27/7/2010 under Fragmentation and Consolidation Act. A separate survey number has been carved out and it is given separate Gat no.1311. Considering the said aspect we do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Gat no.1311 was never sought to be acquired initially. The petition is devoid of merits and hence rejected. No order as to costs. P.B.MAJMUDAR,J MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.