JUDGMENT
Mhase, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. N.B. Khandare, learned A.G.P. for
the respondents.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith with the
consent of the parties. Mr. N.B. Khandare, learned A.G.P.
waives service for respondents.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court to
direct the respondent no. 2 to restore the lands Gat No. 133
and 136 at village Katpur, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad
to the petitioner within three months for his cultivation.
The petitioner was owner of the said lands. These lands
were required by the Govt. for the purposes of Jayakwadi
project and, therefore, the Collector, Aurangabad carried
out a land acquisition proceeding and the lands were
acquired compulsorily under the said provisions and the
compensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act
was also paid. The acquisition proceedings were completed
in the year 1965. However, these lands have not been used
for the said project and the lands are being utilized for
Open Jail located at Jayakwadi project. The petitioner,
therefore, has approached this Court for return of the
said land in view of the Govt. Resolution No. LQN 3473/HI,
dated 10.10.1973, issued by the Revenue and Forests
Department. In clause (B) of the said Govt. Resolution,
it is provided that if, however, the acquired land found
surplus and/or unutilized, cannot be used for any public
purpose within the period of three years from the date of
taking over possession thereof immediately, the Department
concerned should relinquish the land to the Collector of
the district concerned. The Collector of the district
concerned should then take steps for restoration of such
lands to the original owner, perpetual lessee or the
tenant having security of tenure under the various tenancy
laws in force, on payment of market value which should not
exceed double the amount of compensation that is paid,
subject to the ceiling limit prescribed under the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands [Ceiling on Holdings] Act,
1961. We have noticed that this procedure is contrary to
the provisions of law and more specifically the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court in the judgment [State of Kerala and others vs. M.
Bhaskaran Pillai and another]. We have also noticed that
this Govt. Resolution is contrary to the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code (Disposal of Govt. Lands] Rules, 1971 and,
therefore, the notice was issued to the Secretary, Revenue
& Forests Department to file an affidavit. After the
issuance of the notice, now the Govt. has filed the
affidavit accepting that the said Govt. Resolution is
contrary to the existing law and it will not be enforced.
It is further reported to this Court that all actions
which are pending as on today in view of 1973 resolution,
referred to above, are being stayed and the lands will be
disposed of in accordance with the Maharashtra Land
Revenue [Disposal of Govt. Lands] Rules, 1971. The Govt.
is further saying that they want to modify the Circular.
We are least concerned at this stage with the
modification. Whenever such a notification is effected,
it will be considered whether it is proper or not in the
light of the law existing then. As we have noticed that
the Govt. has fairly conceded to the position of law and
has assured that the lands will not be restored on the
basis of 1973 Govt. Resolution above referred, we are
satisfied with the approach of the Govt. We make it clear
again that after acquisition when the possession is taken
by the Govt. the land absolutely vests in the Government
and all the rights of the person who was holding the said
land prior to the acquisition are extinguished and said
person has no right as against that property even though
the Govt. may not have used the said property for the
said public purpose. The Govt. can utilize the said
property for any other public purpose and/or if the Govt.
feels that the Govt. does not want to keep the said land
with it, it can dispose of the said property as laid down
under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Lands)
Rules, 1971. Thus, we find that there is no substance in
the petition. It is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.