JUDGMENT
P.D. Upasani, J.
1. The Petitioner, by this Petition, is challenging the Notifications published on 25th June, 1987 in the Government Gazettee under Section 4, and the Notification published on 7.7.1988 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby Respondent No. 1 sought to acquire 3 ares of land of the Petitioner out of Gat No. 152 at Village Mirajgi, Taluka Akkalkot, District Sholapur for the alleged public-purpose of burial ground for the Muslim Community.
2. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the land of the Petitioner which is sought to be acquired is a bagayat land, and that, the number of Muslims residing at Mrajgi is very small, and that, their population is hardly 50 in number. It is further contended by the Petitioner that as such 5 acres of land is already allotted for the purposes of burial ground for the Muslim Community. It is submitted by the Petitioner that though he filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the said objections were not considered, and that, the acquisition of his land is malafide and hence, the same be quashed.
3. We have heard Ms. M.R.S. Baxi for the Petitioner and Additional Government Pleader Mr. V.S. Gokhale, appearing for the Respondents. We have also perused the proceedings, including the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State dated 18th January, 1989.
4. In para I of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondents, there is a clear admission that area of 5 acres has already been allotted for the purposes of burial ground for Muslim Community. It is further submitted by the Respondents that though this was the position, as the representation was made by the Muslim Community members that the said burial ground was not adequate and did not satisfy the needs of the community, a proposal was sent for the purposes of acquisition of petitioners of land.
5. From the above mentioned averments made by the Respondent, it is evident that the Respondents took steps for acquiring the land of the Petitioner, not because the Respondents were satisfied, even prima-facie, that the land of the Petitioner was required for a public purpose. On their own admission, they initiated acquisition proceedings because representation was made by members of a particular community. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act states as follows:-
Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to he needed for any public purpose….
It means that for the sake of Section 4 Notification, prima-facie satisfaction on the part of the appropriate Government is necessary.
6. At the stage of Declaration under Section 6 also, the declaration has to be made when the appropriate Government “satisfied”, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5A Sub-section (2) that any particular land is needed for a particular purpose…. This element of subjective satisfaction is totally missing in both these Notifications. The Notification under Section 4 as well as Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were made not because the “appropriate Government” was satisfied, but at the behest of those who made a representation. Thus, there is total lack of application of mind on the part of the Respondents in initiating acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question belonging to the petitioner. The acquisition therefore cannot be sustained, and has to be quashed. The Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayer(b). No order as to costs.
Certified Copy expedited.