Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UMASHANKAR RAJABHAU AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 299 JT 1995 (8) 508
1995 SCALE (6)391
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and order dated July 18, 1979 made in Special Civil
Application No.92/75 by the High Court of Bombay.
Notification under Section 4(1) acquiring an extent of about
5 acres of land was published in the State Gazette on
September 17, 1970 for public purpose, namely, construction
of staff quarters for Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation
employees. Declaration under Section 6 was published on July
29, 1971. The award also was made on September 15, 1971. It
would appear that respondents 1-3 had purchased three plots
of land from Usmanshahi Mills which was under liquidation
through the Official Liquidator on June 17, 1968. But the
mutation of their names in the revenue records was not
effected. In consequence, notices could not be issued. They,
in turn, sold these plots to 4th respondent in 1973. A writ
petition was filed on December 19, 1974 challenging the
validity of the notification and also the award. The High
Court set aside the notification on the ground that notices
as required under law have not been served on respondents 1-
3.
It is seen that Section 4(1) does not require the
service of the personal notice nor the one under Section 6
declaration. What is needed to be served in the locality and
the Gazette which have been complied with. As regards the
notices under Section 9 is concerned, it now transpires from
the revenue records that the original owner namely,
Usmanshahi Mill was served. Since mutation had not been
effected in the name of respondents 1-3 though purchased
prior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1),
they could not be issued notices as required under Section
9. Notice to the 4th respondent is obviously impossible,
since the award has already been made on September 15, 1971.
His purchase thereafter is obviously illegal as it does not
bind the State after the notification under Section 4(1) was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
published. Under these circumstances, the High Court was
wholly unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of
three plots of land of respondents 1-3.
It is brought to our notice that after the notification
was quashed by the High Court, no further steps were taken
by the Government. It is not necessary since it is being
challenged in the appeal in respect of these three plots. A
submission was made that the Corporation does not need these
three plots. A submission was made that the Corporation does
not need these three plots of lands for the employees. So
long as there is no notification published under Section
48(1) of the Act withdrawing from the acquisition, the Court
cannot take notice of any subsequent disinclination on the
part of the beneficiary.
The appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands
dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.