Case: Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra &amp; Others

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:ny 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 they for public purpose, namely, to install/erect 132 K.V.. 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 thed lands. The notification was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette (MGG), Pune Division,I (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,I (Extra Ordinary) dated 18.04.1998 andI (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 08.07.1998SLAO (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 ofs compensation payable to as many as 84y filed W.P. No.726/2002 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings and the Award made by the Collector inter alia on the ground of failure of the respondents to afford an opportunity to they to file objection and also not giving personal hearing to it under Section 5A of the ActIt appears that on 15.02.2002 while issuing notice to the respondents, the Division Bench of the High Court granted liberty to they 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 they 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, 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

Court's reasoning:
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 DivisionI (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 Division2.Corrigendum to Section 4(1) Notification17.5.200022.5.20004.Corrigendum to Section 6(1)(2) Notification17.5.200022.5.20006.Corrigendum to Section 9(1)(2) Public Notice17.5.200022.5.2000It is not in dispute that Section 4(1) notification was published in MGG, Pune DivisionI (Supplement) on 17.04.1997 and two daily newspapers, namely, Kesari and Prabhat on the same day. The notification was also published on site on 13.04.1997. In the Schedule to the notification, Survey numbers of the proposed lands with respective areas were provided in column Nos.1 and 2 and the public purpose for which the lands were required was stated as installation of 132 K.V.. The aforesaid notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, on 18.04.1998 which was published in MGG, Pune Division,I (Extraordinary) dated 18.04.1998 andI (Supplement) dated 11.06.1998 respectively. The declaration under Section 6 was also published in two daily newspapers Aaj ka Anand on 29.04.1998 and Rashtratej dated 30.04.1998 as also on the site on 08.07.1998. A clarification to the notification under Section 4 by way of corrigendum was issued on 01.02.2000 by the SLAO, Pune which was published in MGG, Pune Division,I (Supplement) dated 02.03.2000 and in two daily newspapers Kesari and Prabhat on 01.06.2000. The corrigendum was also published on the site. Similarly, corrigendum to declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.02.2000 which was also published in MGG, Pune Division,I (Supplement) dated 02.03.2000 and in two daily newspapers, namely, Saanz Samachar dated 01.03.2000 and Samana on 01.06.2000. The corrigendum was also published on the site on 12.05.2000. Joint notices under Section 4(1), 6(1), 6(2) and 9(1)(2) were duly published on Notice Board at Talathi and Tehsil Notice Board on the dates specified in column Nos.2 and 3 of the above extracted tableessential requirements of publication of primary notification under Section 4 of the Act is to indicate the intention of the appropriate Government that the land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose and for achieving the said purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality and the Collector shall call public notices of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. In the present case, as noticed above, the respondents have wholly complied with the requirements of the provisions of law. They has not brought on record any iota of evidence to show that thed newspapers are not widely circulated in the locality where the land, in question, was situated. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act will not be attracted in cases where there is no obligation cast upon the authorities to issue notice to the persons interested once it is clear that neither Section 4 nor Section 5A of the Act contemplates any personal notice to the person interested other than the objectors for the purpose of conducting inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, the question of applicability of Section 45 in the case of they would not arise at all as they had not filed any objection under Section 5A to the acquisition proceedings consequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the ActThe record placed before us would reveal that the Joint Measurement Plan supplied by TILR, Haveli, did not indicate the hissas of Survey No.23. The owners of the hissa at the time of inquiry conducted under Section 9 of the Act by the SLAO stated that the lands notified for acquisition had somep constructions and sheds, etc. They was the holder of hissa No.23/2/1 which was a part of Survey No.23. The subject matter of the corrigendum issued under Section 4 on 01.02.2000 by the SLAO (14) was published in MGG, Pune DivisionI (Supplement) dated 02.03.2000 and in two daily newspapers on 01.06.2000. Had they been diligent, it would have approached the authorities with whom the plan of the lands under acquisition was available and they could have filed objections under Section 5A of the Act within the time prescribed therein from the date of notification under Section 4(1) admittedly, issued on 01.04.1997 and published in the Official Gazette on 17.04.1997 and two daily newspapers on the same day. By publishing the corrigendum under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6, the SLAO had not changed the Survey numbers of the lands under acquisition, but the entire Survey No.23 (Part) came to be included in the corrigendumOn perusal of the corrigendum, we find no infirmity or vagueness in the identification of the lands covered by Section 4 notification published on 17.04.1997 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The only insignificant clarification contained in the corrigenda was that in the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6,y numbers of the entire Surveyof the land were notified with the extent of the land in eachy numbers, but the total area intended to be acquired for the public purpose remained the same and all the land owners including they were granted compensation by the SLAO vide Award made on 14.06.2000. Therefore, there was no obligation or requirement on the part of the SLAO to give 30 days time to they to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. Notification under Section 4 remained the same by which adequate and reasonable opportunity was given to the interested persons including the, whose land was intended to be acquired, to inspect the map showing the proposed survey numbers and the area involved therein and if any person interested was aggrieved, he could have filed objections under Section 5A of the Act and the SLAO was under obligations to decide such objections in accordance with law, being the owner of the land, has not filed objection under, in principle, must be accepted that it had no objection to Section 4 notification operating in respect of its property. Thoses of the lands who have not filed .objection under Section 5A could not be allowed to contend that Section 5A inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6 declaration must be struck down and that then the Section 4 notification would lapsey has failed to point out that the corrigendum issued to Section 4 notification and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, indicating Survey No.23 (part) in any manner has misled they about the identity of its lands involved in the land acquisition proceedings. The respondents have followed the prescribed statutory procedures laid down in the Act, completed the acquisition proceedings which finally culminated in the making of Award on 14.06.2000 by SLAO. They admittedly, has preferred Reference Application under Section 18 of the Act during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and the said application is stated to be still under consideration of the SLAO or Civil Court21. We are, therefore, not impressed by any of the submissions made on behalf of the. We have, in view of the above discussion, not been persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the High Court.