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.