1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2069/2010 (VIJAY UDHAVRAO TAYADE VERSUS SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.D. Kothari, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for the Intervenor. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 2 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ, Order or Direction for quashing and setting aside the notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published by the respondents in Government Gazette dated 23.04.1999 as also the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20.02.2010. The petitioner has filed this petition on two grounds. According to the petitioner, the land acquisition proceedings were bad in law as the Section 6 notification was not issued within a period of one year from the date of issuance of the Section 4 notification. Secondly, according to the petitioner, the respondents had not personally heard the petitioner and, therefore, there was no proper enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the first ground raised by the petitioner in regard to the validity of the Section 6 notification, which was issued belatedly as it 2 was found from the perusal of the record that the Section 4 notification was issued for the first time on 12.04.2008. The Chawdi notification dated 12.04.2008 clearly showed that the Section 6 notification was issued within a period of one year from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification and, therefore, the first ground raised by the petitioner did not survive. In regard to the second ground about the absence of opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Assistant Government Pleader had produced the original record in the land acquisition proceedings before this Court. We have perused the record and have found that a notice was indeed issued to the petitioner for remaining present before the land acquisition officer for raising his objection and also for personal hearing or hearing through his counsel, on 05.05.2008. It appears from the original record that the petitioner remained present before the Special land acquisition officer on 05.05.2008 and had submitted his objections in writing. These objections are duly considered by the Executive Engineer and a report was submitted, which is at Annexure-R-IV to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition). It further appears from the record that the petitioner did not wait or claim a personal hearing on 05.05.2008 and left the Office of the land acquisition officer without seeking personal hearing. In such circumstances, when the objection of the petitioner is considered, it cannot be said that the land acquisition proceedings are bad as there was no enquiry under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has rightly relied on 3 the judgment reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 349 (Madhav Ramchandra Nanivadekar & another Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer No.12 & others) to canvas that it is not obligatory on the land acquisition officer to give personal hearing to a citizen in an enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act when the person does not demand personal hearing though an opportunity was offered to him. In the instant case, we have perused from the record that the notice clearly states that the petitioner would be heard personally or through his counsel on 05.05.2008. In such circumstances, the objection raised by the petitioner in regard to the absence of an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, also does not survive. It appears that the award has also been passed in this case and all the other land holders have received the compensation and have delivered the possession of the property to the State. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE