Case: PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VISHNUDEV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY

3) In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the factual backgroundof the casen from theSLP paper books and its List ofSurvey No. (Gat. No.210 - measuring around 39 H 26 R and Survey No. 211 measuring around 1 H 23 R-Total land 40 H 49 R) situated at Mauje Wakad, Tehsil Mulshi, District Pune (Maharashtra) was originally owned by the members of one0, theGovernment acquired this land by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was followed by publication ofdeclaration under Section 6of the Act. Theent andin Pimpril, commercialThe developmentproject for whichthe land wass to beri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority (for short, called "PCNTDA) - appellantThe Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, called "SLAO ) then initiated the proceedings under Section11 of the Actle to theand accordingly passed an award dated 23.09.1986. The SLAOto the landownersas required under Section 12 (2) of the Act.Since the landowners did not accept the compensation, the entire amount of compensation was deposited by the SLAO in Revenue Deposit Account ofThe members of?Deo family? (landowners) felt aggrieved by the award dated 23.09.1986 and filed writ petition being W.P. No. 3719/1987 in the High Court at Bombay. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 18.07.1989. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved by the dismissal of theirwrit petition filedP. No.3751/1989) before the High Court, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 08.09.1989. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition and the review petition,(c) No.12889/1989 in this Court. It was also dismissed as withdrawn onIn the meantime, on 19.09.1989, the members of?Deo Family? filed an application under Section 48(1) of the Act to the Revenue Minister of the State of Maharashtra and prayed therein for release of their, the landownersfiled writ petition(No.36/1990) in the High Court and prayed therein forn to thetheir application. By order datedthe High Courtdisposed of the writ petition and directed the Statein accordance withBy order datedthe State Governmentlandowners application and while releasing the land measuring 29 H 98 R retained the remaining land measuring10 H 51 R for execution of the developmentproject for whichThe detailsof the landare mentionedIt appears from the record of the proceedings that after the dismissal of the reviewers of?Deo family?) transferred the acquired land iners ofone Co-operative Housing Society called, "Vishnudev Co- operative Housing Society" (for short called "VCHS")- respondent No.1 herein on or aboutRespondent No.1 (VCHS)claiming to be the ownerof the landin question felt aggrieved and filed writng thereinthe legality of the order of the State dated 07.07.1992 to the extent it declined to release the remaining land measuring 10 H 51 R.The High Court, by order dated 23.03.1993, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the State.Respondent No.1 (VCHS)carried the matter in this Court by filing SLP (C) No.10056/1993.By order datedsed theal Commissionerorder dated 20.08.1994under Section 48 (1) of the Acttherein for deletion of29 H 98 R from Survey No. 210 and retaining of 10 H 33 R as acquired land for completion of development project.This is how, out of total acquired land, the land measuring 29 H 98 R was released in favour of landowners from the acquisition proceedings and the land measuring 10 H 33 R was retained to enable the State to execute the development project on the said land through the agency of theNotwithstanding the termination of two rounds of litigation up to thisHS againnd andit petitionhe High Courtthis time prayedtherein for deletion of10 H 55 R from Survey No. 210/1.By order datede High Court. Again the said order, the VCHS filed SLP (C) No.22907/1994 in this Court and the same was dismissed by order dated0, theSLAO took possessionof the landbearing Gat. No. 210 (10 H 33 R) and executed panchanama in support thereof. The name ofthe State Governmentwas accordingly entered in the revenue records at Mutation Entry No. 8212(File No.e State Governmenter the possession ofthe land in questionto PCNTDA on 08.11.2005 to enable them to start the work on the land. It was followed by entry of name of PCNTDA in the revenue records onDespite losing the battle in the first,round ofabove, VCHSed an application under Section 48(1) of the Act to the Revenue Minister of the State of Maharashtrato start anotheron on 20.01.2004. The Revenue Minister on 10.06.2004, however, noted in the file thatthe land in question

Reasoning:
41) The question arose before a Bench of three Judges of this Court inBalwant Narayan Bhagde (supra) as to how and in what mannerof the acquired landis required to beas provided under Section 16of the Act. Themajority view speaking through Bhagwati J. (as His Lordship then was) dealt with this issue succinctly in Para 28 thus: 28………We think it is enough to state that whento takeof the landacquired by it under theLand Acquisition Act,it must take actualll interestsbe acquired by it. There can be no question of taking?symbolical? possession in the sense understoodunder thewould possession merely on paper be enough. What theary conditiong of thein the Governmentthe taking of. How such possession may be taken would depend on the natureuch possession would have to be taken as the natureof the landadmits of. There can be no hard and fast rule laying downwould be sufficient to constitute taking of possession ofland. We shouldbe taken aste anding on the spot andwould be sufficient to constitute taking of possession ofland in every case. But here, in our opinion, sincethe land waslying fallow and there was no crop on it at the material time, the act of the Tehsildar inon the spot andinspecting the land for the purpose ofte andd, therefore,taken possession of and determining its extent, was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. It appears that the appellant was not present when this was done by the Tehsildar, but the presence of the owner or the occupantof the landis not necessary to effectuatethe taking ofIt is alsonot strictly necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should behe owner or the occupantof the landthat possession would be taken at a particular time, though it may be desirable wherebefore possessiontaken by theas that would eliminate the possibility of any fraudulent or collusive transaction of taking ofthe occupant or the owner ever coming to know ofKeeping in view the law laid down in Balwant Narayan Bhagde(supra), we proceed to examine the question as toired land wastaken by theand, if so,whether it was donein accordance withthe test laid down by thised thePanchanama (Annexure-P- 4) dated 30.05.2004, Mutation Entry No. 8212 (file 7/12)pt (Annexure-P-12) andMutation Entry of PCNTDA (Annexure -P-28/29) relied upon by the State,we have no hesitation in holding that the State did take possessionof the acquired landon 30.05.2000 as perthe test laid down by thisCourt in Balwant Narayan Bhagde(supra). This we say for4) First, the State gave notice to all theof the landthem toremain present at the time of taking possession by the SLAO;Second, out of all the co-owners, two, namely,an Devan Devwere present at the timen. Itpossession washe presence of two witnesses bythe SLAO; Fourth, panchanamad by thewitnesses; Fifth, the name of thely entered in the revenue recordsafter obtaining possession as an owner;t, into the appellantand Seventh, the name of PCNTDA was also entered in the revenue recordsof the land) Once we hold that the possessionof the landin question wastaken by then accordance withlaw on 30.05.2004 from the landowners, we have no hesitation in holding thatthe provisions of Section 48 of the Act were notcase at hand. In other words, once it is held that theof the acquired landwith the State, the land stood vested in the State disentitling the State