The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings in Aurangabad, holding that strict compliance with notification procedures under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is mandatory even when acquisition is conducted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The judgment underscores the necessity of proper publication in local newspapers and public display of acquisition notices, while rejecting arguments that procedural lapses could invalidate acquisition after possession was taken.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, landowners from village Tisgaon, Aurangabad, challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) for road widening purposes. The acquisition affected Gut No.128, admeasuring 52R, which the petitioners had purchased from Gut No.113 and developed for a stone crusher business after obtaining non-agricultural (N.A.) permission on 09.09.1986.
Key Facts
- 09.09.1986: Petitioners obtained N.A. permission for the land
- 16.04.1992: Draft Development Plan published in Government Gazette, showing petitioners' land for road widening
- 02.08.1996: Proposal for acquisition submitted
- 04.08.1998: Notification under Section 126(4) MRTP Act read with Section 6 Land Acquisition Act issued
- 24.09.1998: Notification published in daily Ajanta
- 25.09.1998: Notification published in Urdu daily Raheber
- 10.12.1998: Notification published in Government Gazette
- 12.12.1998: Panchnama allegedly prepared showing notice pasted at convenient place
- 14.08.2001: Draft Development Plan sanctioned by Government
- 07.02.2002: Rectification notification published in daily Sanjiwarta
- 18.12.2006: Award passed acquiring 54R land
- 23.12.2006: Petitioners received notice under Section 12(2) Land Acquisition Act
- 25.12.2006: Petitioners replied contesting lack of prior notice
- 08.01.2007: CIDCO published corrigendum correcting newspaper name from Ajanta to Lokmat
- 18.01.2007: Petitioners offered land for service road but sought deletion of other reservations
- 12.02.2007: Writ Petition No.1077/2007 filed
- 05.03.2007: Single Judge dismissed WP/1077/2007
- SLP No.8859/2007: Supreme Court granted leave and remanded matter back to High Court
- 17.09.2014: Petitioners produced NHAI notification
- 17.01.2001: CIDCO letter referenced only Raheber newspaper
Procedural History
- 12.02.2007: WP/1077/2007 filed before Bombay High Court
- 05.03.2007: Single Judge dismissed the petition
- SLP No.8859/2007: Supreme Court remanded matter to High Court for reconsideration
- WP/744/2007 & WP/2334/2007: Filed with similar prayers
- 17.04.2026: Arguments concluded, judgment reserved
- 12.06.2026: Judgment pronounced dismissing all petitions
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners' Arguments:
- No compliance with Section 6(2) Land Acquisition Act as publication was not made in two widely circulated newspapers
- Publication in Lokmat was falsely claimed; actual publication was in Ajanta with no proof
- Notification in Government Gazette (10.12.1998) was published after newspaper publication (September 1998)
- No public notice displayed at convenient place in locality
- Panchnama dated 12.12.1998 was fabricated
- Proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013
- Non-compliance with Section 13-A Land Acquisition Act as SLAO corrected newspaper name
- Petitioners had no knowledge of acquisition despite running business on premises
Respondents' Arguments:
- Acquisition was under Section 126 MRTP Act, not Land Acquisition Act
- Judgments cited by petitioners inapplicable as MRTP Act has different object
- WP/1077/2007 was dismissed earlier; Supreme Court remand limited to compliance with Section 6(2)
- No other arguments permissible beyond remand terms
- Gazette publication in Raheber was sufficient substantial compliance
- Typographical errors in corrigendum did not prejudice petitioners' rights
- Possession already taken; nothing remains to be decided
- Petitioners had knowledge of Draft Development Plan since 16.04.1992
- No correction in award under Section 13-A as rights not prejudiced
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Declaration that land acquisition proceedings dated 18.12.2006 are cancelled
- Declaration that acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013
- Quashing of declaration dated 10.12.1998 under Section 6(1) and 6(2) Land Acquisition Act
- In WP/744/2007, petitioners offered to give land without compensation but sought continuation of business
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act requires strict compliance with notification procedures when land acquisition is conducted under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, and whether procedural lapses in publication and public display invalidate the acquisition proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Mr. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, argued:
- Section 6(2) Land Acquisition Act mandates publication in two widely circulated newspapers and public display at convenient place
- No compliance as publication was in Ajanta and Raheber, not Lokmat as claimed
- Government Gazette publication (10.12.1998) occurred after newspaper publication (September 1998)
- Panchnama dated 12.12.1998 was fabricated
- Proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013
- Non-compliance with Section 13-A as SLAO corrected newspaper name
- Petitioners had no knowledge despite running business on premises
Cited judgments:
- Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) By LRs. v. State of U.P.: Publication under Section 6(2) is mandatory in all three modes
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana: Section 6 is beneficial provision for landowners
- State of U.P. v. Abdul Ali: No correction permissible under Section 13-A beyond clerical errors
- Naresh Kumar v. Government (NCT of Delhi): Only clerical errors can be corrected within six months
- Annapurna Shamrao Thaokar v. State of Maharashtra: Section 6 compliance mandatory
For the Respondents
Mr. S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for CIDCO, argued:
- Acquisition was under Section 126 MRTP Act, not Land Acquisition Act
- Judgments cited by petitioners inapplicable as MRTP Act has different object
- Supreme Court remand limited to Section 6(2) compliance; no other arguments permissible
- Gazette publication in Raheber was sufficient substantial compliance
- Corrigendum only corrected typographical errors
- Petitioners had knowledge of Draft Development Plan since 16.04.1992
- Possession already taken; nothing remains to be decided
- No prejudice caused to petitioners under Section 13-A
Cited judgments:
- Eknath Punjaji Nawale v. State of Maharashtra: Even if publication in two newspapers failed, acquisition not vitiated if landowners had knowledge
- Special Deputy Collector v. J. Sivaprakasam: Requirement is for newspapers with reasonably wide circulation
- WP/10217/2014: Recent judgment dismissing identical petitions with same grounds
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the mandatory nature of Section 6(2) Land Acquisition Act, which requires publication of declaration in:
- Official Gazette
- Two daily newspapers circulating in the locality
- Public display at convenient place in the locality
"When a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing the particular act, then such act must be done in the same manner."
The Court relied on Kunwar Pal Singh to hold that Section 6(2) compliance is mandatory and cannot be waived. However, the Court distinguished the present case by noting that acquisition was primarily under Section 126 MRTP Act, where the object differs from the Land Acquisition Act.
The Court considered the argument that petitioners had knowledge of the Draft Development Plan since 16.04.1992, suggesting constructive notice of acquisition proceedings. It relied on Eknath Punjaji Nawale to hold that even if publication in two newspapers was deficient, the acquisition would not be vitiated if landowners had knowledge of the proposed acquisition.
"Even assuming that a declaration is required to be made in two local newspapers, the question is, whether on failure to do so, the acquisition is vitiated... It is significant to note that there is no averment in the writ petition that the respondents were not aware of the proposed acquisition."
The Court also noted that the recent judgment in WP/10217/2014 dismissed identical petitions with the same grounds, reinforcing that no interference was warranted.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed all writ petitions with no order as to costs. The Rule was discharged. However, the Court granted interim relief continuation for six weeks from the judgment date (12.06.2026) to allow petitioners time to seek further remedies.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Strict Compliance with Notification Procedures Is Mandatory
- Section 6(2) Land Acquisition Act requires publication in Official Gazette, two local newspapers, and public display at convenient place
- While the Court distinguished acquisition under MRTP Act, it implicitly reinforced that procedural compliance remains critical
- Practitioners should ensure all three modes of publication are strictly followed to avoid challenges
Knowledge of Acquisition Can Cure Procedural Defects
- Even if publication in two newspapers is deficient, acquisition may not be vitiated if landowners had constructive or actual knowledge of proceedings
- Evidence of knowledge (e.g., Draft Development Plan publication, business operations on land) can be crucial in defending acquisition validity
- Landowners challenging acquisition must specifically plead and prove lack of knowledge to succeed
Remand Orders Limit Scope of Arguments
- When the Supreme Court remands a matter on a specific point, lower courts may restrict arguments to that point only
- Petitioners cannot raise new grounds beyond the remand terms without court permission
- Practitioners should carefully frame grounds in initial petitions to avoid being constrained by later remand orders
Possession Taken May Bar Subsequent Challenges
- Once possession is taken, courts may be reluctant to invalidate acquisition proceedings even if procedural lapses exist
- Landowners should challenge acquisition before possession is taken to preserve their rights
- Delay in challenging proceedings can severely prejudice landowners' cases
