TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sold to the Fourth respondent-Committee came to be marked as Survey No. 2/2 and the land which remained with the appellants came to be marked as Survey No. 2/1. The Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing, Pune addressed a letter dated 17.5.1980 to the Fourth respondent-Committee informing them inter alia that in order to be eligible for Central Government's financial assistance, the Fourth respondent should acquire 15 acres of land. Perhaps, in order to fulfil this condition, the Fourth respondent submitted a proposal to the Collector, Ahmednagar for acquisition of the required land for its acquisition. The proposal was processed and accordingly a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was published in the Official Gazette of 24.6.1982, The appellants filed their objections to the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act, raising a number of objections and inter alia alleging malafides on the part of the Fourth respondent in seeking to acquire for the reason of enriching themselves under the guise of a public purpose. The Third respondent, Sub-Divisional Officer, held an inquiry under Section 5A of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r family members. The First respondent, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, objected to the grant of non-agricultural permission on several grounds. By an order dated 22.10.1981, the Tehsildar, Pathardi granted N.A. permission to the appellants as prayed for. The First respondent-Committee challenged the order of the Tehsildar with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rahuri Division, Ahmednagar. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by his judgment and order dated 17.5.1982 dismissed the said appeal. Another R.T.S. appeal No. 31/82 was filed before the Additional Collector (Appeals), Ahmednagar. This too came to be dismissed by the order of the Additional Collector (Appeals) dated 5.8.1983. The First respondent-Committee filed a revision petition under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code being Revision Application No. 375 of 1983 before the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Road. By an Order dated 3.9.1986 the Additional Commissioner rejected the said revision petition. Aggrieved thereby, the First respondent-Committee filed Writ Petition No. 6095 before the Bombay High Court, which was transferred to the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in 1989 and re-numbered as Writ Petition No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and beyond his jurisdiction. The only power of the Sub-Divisional Officer exercising the powers of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the Act is as contemplated under the section, to make a report after hearing the objections of the persons interested in the land which was proposed to be acquired. There is no manner of doubt that the officer hearing the objections under Section 5A of the Act has no adjudicatory powers with regard to the legality or otherwise of a preliminary notification made under Section 4 of the Act. But, even accepting this position, it is difficult to agree with the contention of Mr. Dhabe that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, purportedly made under Section 5A of the Act, was appealable under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to the Commissioner, or that, it was revisable under Section 257 of the Code. It may be true that, both the Sub-Divisional Officer or Collector and the Commissioner are Revenue Officers are defined in Section 2(31) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. But, when they act under the provisions of the Act, they are not acting as Revenue Officers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are afraid that it is not possible to accede to this argument for the simple reason that in Mohd. Swalleh (supra), this Court was considering the correctness of the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Unquestionably, the Commissioner is not vested with any such jurisdiction. Nor can the two be equated. Reliance by Mr. Dhabe on Section 54 of the Act is also futile as this section delineates the appellate power of the High Court. Mr. Dhabe finally urged that if this Court were to hold that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act to be illegal and set it aside, immense prejudice would be caused to the Fourth respondent, as in view of the law laid down by this Court in Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) And Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. [2002] 3 SCC 533, the prescription of time limit in Section 6 is peremptory in nature and there is no scope for stretching the period further to have the time period run from the date of this Court's order. Hence, he contended that we should uphold the declaration made by the Commissioner under Section 6 of the Act. In our view, the submissions made on behalf of the respondents cannot be acce....