Case: Nilima Mahesh Bhole Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others

2. The petitioner has sought quashment of the acquisition proceedings bearing No. 3 of 2008 to the extent of 20 Ares of her land out of block no. 2284, situate at village Asoda, Taluka and District Jalgaon as well as the notice dated 23.05.2016, issued by respondent No. 3Special Land Acquisition Officer for taking possession of the said land with the help of police.

Reasoning:
11. In view of the legal position stated above, the publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, would not tantamount to initiating the acquisition proceedings. The land acquisition proceedings can be said to have commenced after the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act is made. In the present case, the declaration under Section 6 admittedly has been made on 18.07.2014. If that be so, it cannot be said that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1894 on the date of commencement of the Act of 2013 i.e. on 01.4.2014. Consequently, the provisions of Section 24 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. After commencement of the Act of 2013 on 01.01.2014, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner were not liable to be initiated and continued under the Act of 1894, which, in fact, was repealed vide(1) of section 114 of the Act of 2013. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by respondent no.3 in respect of the land of the petitioner on 18.07.2014, as per the provisions of the repealed Act of 1894 cannot be said to be legal and sustainable in the eye of law. The Award passed by respondent no.3 on 10.05.2015 under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 cannot be said to be a legally enforceable award, so far as the land of the petitioner is concerned, though the amount of compensation is stated to have been determined under the provisions of the Act of 2013.12. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings were initiated and Award also were passed under the provisions of the Act of 1894, prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. Consequently, the said judgments would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.