Accordingly, on 24.6.1983, the Third respondent S.D.O. passed an order canceling the Notification dated 24.6.1982 and this order was published in the Official Gazette on 11.10.1983.
The proposal was processed and accordingly a numberification 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 numberification 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.
2816 of 1985 before the High Court.
The father of the appellants sold 14 acres of land from Survey No.
The Sub Divisional Officer, by his judgment and order dated 17.5.1982 dismissed the said appeal.
The Second respondent Additional Commissioner, finally by his order dated 14.2.1985 allowed the appeal filed by the Fourth respondent Committee and set aside the order of the Additional Collector and Sub Divisional Officer He restored the numberification under Section 4 1 of the Act and directed the Deputy Collector to submit a proposal for a final declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
The First respondent Committee challenged the order of the Tehsildar with the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri Division, Ahmednagar.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the Fourth respondent Committee approached the Additional Collector Appeals , Ahmednagar, impugned the order of the Sub Divisional Officer.
3433 of 1989.
Even assuming that the Sub Divisional Officers order dated 24.6.1983.
The First respondent, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, objected to the grant of number agricultural permission on several grounds.
The First respondent Committee filed a revision petition under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code being Revision Application No.
The Second respondent purported to entertain the appeal despite a preliminary objection raised by the appellants.
While this appeal was pending before the Additional Commissioner, the Fourth respondent Committee approached the High Court by its Writ Petition No.
Being aggrieved, the respondents are before this Court in appeal.
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.
The Third respondent, Sub Divisional Officer, held an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act and made an order on 24.6.1983 holding that the demand for additional land made by the Fourth respondent Committee was number genuine and.
The father of the appellants was the owner of agricultural land in Survey No.
Another R.T.S. appeal No.
This too came to be dismissed by the order of the Additional Collector Appeals dated 5.8.1983.
A further appeal was made by the Fourth respondent Committee to the Additional Commissioner at Nasik, who is Second respondent before us.
Civil Appeal No.
Perhaps, in order to fulfil this companydition, the Fourth respondent submitted a proposal to the Collector, Ahmednagar for acquisition of the required land for its acquisition.
6142 of 2002 Appellants are two brothers and sons of one Bhagchand Navalmal Gugale.
Aggrieved thereby, the First respondent Committee filed Writ Petition No.
6142 of 2002 Learned companynsel for the appellants companytends that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition of the Agricultural Procedure Market Committee.
The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court made on 5.7.2001.
Hence, the writ petition is premature.
Facts in Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, a declaration came to be made under Section 6 of the Act on 27.6.1985.
1046/84 challenging the Second respondent in entertaining the appeal.
2 to Respondent No.
6143 of 2002 On 3.12.1979, the appellants had applied to the Tahsildar of the companycerned area for permission to companyvert the balance of 75 areas of land for number agricultural use to enable them to build houses for their family members.
Facts in Civil Appeal No.
By an order dated 22.10.1981, the Tehsildar, Pathardi granted N.A. permission to the appellants as prayed for.
2 was divided into two parts, i.e. Survey No.
This writ petition came to be dismissed by an order 9.3.1984 by observing The Commissioner is seized of the matter and under Section 6 of the Act final decision is to be taken by the Commissioner.
The appellants challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner by their Writ Petition No.
Ahmednagar.
The portion of the land sold to the Fourth respondent Committee came to be marked as Survey No.
375 of 1983 before the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Road.
Consequent to this sale, Survey No.
31/82 was filed before the Additional Collector Appeals , Ahmednagar.
4, Agricultural Produce Market Committee A.P.M.C. by a registered sale deed dated 11.4.196.
Hence, rejected.
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 Governments financial assistance, the Fourth respondent should acquire 15 acres of land.
By an Order dated 3.9.1986 the Additional Commissioner rejected the said revision petition.
This appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated June, 1983 made by the Additional Collector Appeals .
