1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2758 OF 2009 Anil s/o Sadashiv Patil and another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.K. Deshapnde, advocate for the petitioners Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondents. 3 By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners take exception to the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Gat No. 17 admeasuring 1 2 H 90 R. situated at village Dhurkheda, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon. The petitioners are owners of the said land. The proposed acquisition is for rehabilitation of “Project Affected Persons”, being a special case, for Hatnoor Tapi Project. In response to the notice issued to the petitioners, they filed their objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the said objections, amongst others, two prominent issues have been raised. The first objection is that there are three other lands available in the vicinity, which were more suitable for the purpose, for which the proposed acquisition of suit land is resorted to. As a matter of fact, the village Panchayat has passed a resolution that said three lands are made available for proposed acquisition being suitable lands. Secondly, it is asserted that the petitioners’ land is fertile and agricultural land and also not suitable for the purpose for which it is being acquired. The fact that the above said objection was filed by the petitioners during the course of Section 5A enquiry is not disputed. The respondent in the reply filed before this Court, however, has chosen to rely on communication dated 12.12.2008, which is sent to the petitioners by Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is merely a communication informing the petitioners that their objections have been rejected. No reason in support is found in the said communication for rejecting the objections taken by the petitioners. The learned A.G.P. sought to rely on the panchnama at page 56 (Exh. R-3) to contend that the suit lands were more convenient and suitable for the proposed acquisition. The panchnama cannot be the basis to 3 answer the issue. It was expected of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners and record reasons for rejecting the same. That is lacking in the present case. No other record has been produced before us to point out that on the file, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has had occasion to record reasons for rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. 4 In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned notice issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and instead relegate the petitioners before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn shall reconsider the objections filed by the petitioners on its own merits, in accordance with law. In the event, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inclined to reject the said objections, ought to record reasons therefor and communicate the same to the petitioners. The Special Land Acquisition Officer may dispose of the objections as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months from today. All questions are left open. 5 Petition is disposed of on the above terms. Rule made absolute. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/ 4