Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:

4. The appellant-company herein is the owner of the suit property bearing Survey No. 23/2/1 situate in Village Kondhwa Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, admeasuring 1 Hectare and 82 Are. In the year 1996, the Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Division, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Pune [for short "MSEB"] approached the Collector, Pune, for the acquisition of the land situate in Village Kondhwa Budruk bearing Survey Nos. 23/2/1, 23/1/1/1, 23/1/2, 23/1/1, 23/1/3/1 and 23/1/2/2, total 2 Hectares and 78 Ares including the land of the appellant-company for public purpose, namely, to 'install'/'erect' 132 K.V. Sub-station. The Collector, Pune, accordingly, vide order No. PLO/CR/25/96 dated 01.02.1996 forwarded the proposal of the Executive Engineer to the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Pune, to acquire the above extent of land under the provisions of the Act. On 01.04.1997, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) (14), Pune, issued Notification No. LAO / 48/ 570, under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the above-said lands. The notification was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette (MGG), Pune Division, Part-1 (Supplement) on 17.04.1997. Also, in compliance with the requirements of the Act, the said notification was published in two newspapers, namely, daily 'Kesari' and daily 'Prabhat' on 17.04.1997 and on 30.04.1997 it was published on the site. On 26.09.1997, the SLAO held mandatory enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and submitted his report to the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, through the Collector, Pune. Subsequent thereto, on 18.04.1998 the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in MGG, Pune Division, Part-I (Extra Ordinary) dated 18.04.1998 and Part-I (Supplement) dated 11.06.1998 respectively. Section 6 declaration was published in daily 'Aaj Ka Anand' on 29.04.1998 and on 30.04.1998 it was published in daily 'Rashtratej' and on site on 08.07.1998.

5. It appears that subsequently a corrigendum No. LAQ/48/30/2000 was issued by the SLAO (14) Pune, to the notification under Section 4 which was published in MGG, Pune Division Part-I (Supplement), Pune, on 02.03.2000 in two daily newspapers 'Kesari' and 'Prabhat' on 01.06.2000. Similarly, corrigendum to the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, on 01.06.2000. The corrigendum to Section 6 was published in MGG, Pune Division Part-I (Supplement), Pune, on 02.03.2000 and in daily newspapers 'Sanz Samachar on 01.03.2000 and 'Samana' on 01.06.2000. It appears from the record that detail of the publication of the corrigendum issued under Section 6 of the Act was published on website on 12.06.2000. The record also reveals that the general notice under Sections 4(1), 6(1), 6(2), 9(1) and 9(2) were notified on Notice Board at Talathi and Tehsil Notice Board. Details of such publication are as below:

6. The SLAO (14), Pune, finally made an Award of the acquired lands bearing Survey No. 23 (Part), admeasuring 2 Hectares and 78 Ares and awarded a sum of Rs. 73,86,740/-as compensation payable to as many as 84 claimants-owners of the lands including the appellant-company.

8. It appears that on 15.02.2002 while issuing notice to the respondents, the Division Bench of the High Court granted liberty to the appellant-company to file a Reference Application under Section 18 of the Act without prejudice to the contentions raised in the writ petition. The appellant, accordingly, filed a Reference Application. Finally, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the appellant-company could not make out any justification for interference in the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. However, at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant-company, status quo order for a period of 12 weeks from the date of recording of the judgment, i.e. 24th August, 2005, was ordered. Hence, the appellant-company has filed this appeal.

21. We are, therefore, not impressed by any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-company. We have, in view of the above discussion, not been persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the High Court.

22. The judgment passed by the High Court is a well-reasoned judgment and the same does not require any interference in the present appeal.

23. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.