4.wp.5236-09gr 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1] WRIT PETITON NO.5236 OF 2009 Baban Mahadu Pachpute. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [2] WRIT PETITION NO.5241 OF 2009 Sadashiv Sitaram Pachpute. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [3] WRIT PETITION NO.6065 OF 2009 Ananda Bhagwan Mengale. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [4] WRIT PETITION NO.6066 OF 2009 Kisan Padwal s/o. Kisan Savleram Padwal and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. 4.wp.5236-09gr 2 ... WITH [5] WRIT PETITION NO.6068 OF 2009 Chindhu Sahadu Ghanvat. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [6] WRIT PETITION NO.6069 OF 2009 Ankush Bhasker Kale and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [7] WRIT PETITION NO.6072 OF 2009 Pandarinath Nana Andre and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [8] WRIT PETITION NO.6073 OF 2009 Kisan Ranu Bute. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [9] WRIT PETITION NO.6074 OF 2009 4.wp.5236-09gr 3 Dnyanoba Bhima Bute and others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... WITH [10] WRIT PETITION NO.6075 OF 2009 Dada Bhau Andre. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Vivek V. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.P.P. Chavan, Advocate i/b. Navdeep Vora & Asso. for Respondent No.4. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2010. P.C. 1. By these Petitions, compulsory acquisition of the land under Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 is challenged. The first challenge is that the notification issued under sub section 2 of Section 32 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 does not mention the specific purpose for which the land is being acquired. Perusal 4.wp.5236-09gr 4 of that notice, however, shows that it is mentioned that to these lands Chapter VI of the Act has been made applicable. Perusal of the provisions of sub section 1 Section 32 shows that the State Government issues a notification making provisions of Chapter VI applicable to the area which area is earmarked by the Government for being developed as industrial area. Therefore, when the notification under sub section 2 Section 32 makes a mention that the provisions of chapter VI is applicable to the area, it implies that the land is being acquired for development as industrial area. 2. The learned Counsel then submitted that though the petitioners had not raised any objection to the notice, they are entitled to personal hearing by the Officer in view of the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 32. Bare perusal of the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 32 shows that this submission is without any substance. Personal hearing is contemplated to be given to such owner who has lodged objection or shown cause. In our opinion, granting personal hearing to the owners of the land who have not raised any objection to the acquisition of the land will not serve any purpose. 4.wp.5236-09gr 5 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that though there is a mandatory requirement of personal hearing, the notice dated 20.2.2007 contemplates that the owners seeking an opportunity of personal hearing, that according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 32. In our opinion, as the petitioners had not raised any objection to the acquisition of their land, they cannot raise this challenge. The learned Counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the lands of the petitioners are irrigated lands and there were agricultural crops taken therefore they should not have been acquired. This is an objection on the merits and, therefore, it was for the petitioners to lodge objection to the proposed notification. The petitioners having not done so, they cannot for the first time raise such challenges here in a Writ Petition. The Petition are thus without substance and are rejected as such. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)