1992 (4) TMI 252 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the land acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Alleged agreement between the petitioners and the authorities to exclude certain lands from acquisition.
3. Claims of arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory actions by the respondents.
4. Legality of passing piecemeal awards under the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Applicability of the State Government's policy decision to exclude certain lands from acquisition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Land Acquisition Process:
On February 3, 1970, the Commissioner, Bombay Division, published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, indicating that certain lands in Thana and Kolaba districts were needed for public purposes, specifically for the planned development and utilization in the Trans Harbour, Panvel, and Trans Thana Creek areas. The notification excluded Gaothan sites, lands already notified for acquisition, lands occupied by religious buildings, burial grounds, and lands belonging to the Central and State Governments and other statutory corporations. Subsequent notifications expanded the area and designated it for the new town development, with the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) appointed as the development authority.

2. Alleged Agreement to Exclude Certain Lands:
The petitioners, owners of land in Panvel, claimed that they had an agreement with the Land Acquisition Officer and an officer from CIDCO to surrender a portion of their land in exchange for the exclusion of the remaining area from acquisition. The petitioners voluntarily surrendered 1 Acre 20 Gunthas and received 80% compensation as advance payment. However, the respondents denied any such agreement, and the court found no evidence to support the petitioners' claim. The court held that any withdrawal of land from acquisition must follow the procedures outlined in Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, which requires a formal notification in the Official Gazette.

3. Claims of Arbitrary, Unreasonable, and Discriminatory Actions:
The petitioners argued that the respondents acted arbitrarily by excluding certain lands from acquisition while continuing with the acquisition of their land. The court found no merit in this claim, noting that the lands allegedly excluded were within the original municipal limits of Panvel, which were specifically excluded from the acquisition notifications. The court also rejected the petitioners' reliance on various judicial precedents, finding them inapplicable to the present case.

4. Legality of Passing Piecemeal Awards:
The petitioners contended that it was impermissible for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass piecemeal awards for different portions of their land. The court rejected this argument, citing amendments to the Land Acquisition Act that allow for multiple notifications under Section 6 and the issuance of separate awards. The court referenced a Division Bench decision that supported the legality of passing separate awards for different portions of the land.

5. Applicability of the State Government's Policy Decision:
The petitioners argued that their land should be excluded from acquisition based on a policy decision by the State Government to exclude houses contiguous to existing Gaothans and municipal limits if constructed before February 4, 1970. The court held that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that any withdrawal of land from acquisition must comply with Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court also found that the petitioners' land did not meet the conditions set out in the policy decision, as it was not contiguous to the existing municipal limits.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims. The land acquisition process was deemed valid, and the alleged agreement to exclude certain lands was unsupported by evidence. The respondents' actions were not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and the piecemeal awards were legally permissible. The State Government's policy decision did not apply to the petitioners' land, and any withdrawal from acquisition must follow the statutory requirements.