1. These five petitions seek to challenge acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act pursuant to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act by the Commissioner of Poona Division,
2. By that notification under Section 6 of the Act, the Commissioner of Poona Division declared that several lands mentioned in that notification and situated at village Udtare in Wai Taluka of Satara District were required for the public purpose specified in the notification. That purpose was for resettlement of the persons affected by the Krishna-Dhom Project.
3. In Special Civil Application No.2001 of 1972 the lands involved are Gat Nos. 1531. 1613 and 189; in Special Civil Application No. 2029 of 1972 the land involved is Gat No. 272; Gat No. 1020 is the land acquisition of which is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 2028 of 1972; in Special Civil Applications Nos. 2157 and 2158 the lands involved are Gats Nos. 252 and 259 and Nos. 828 and 262 respectively. All the lands, as mentioned, are situate in village Udtare to which the petitioners belong,
4. The challenge to the acquisition as mentioned in the petition is on the ground that the purpose for which the lands are being acquired is for the resettlement of the persons affected by the Krishna-Dhom Project, which purpose is not a public purpose, that the Government Resolution which lays down a scale according to which the lands are to be acquired from various persons and allotted to affected persons is arbitrary and will result in discrimination between persons situate in the same manner and that the inquiry under Section 5-A which was conducted under the Land AcquisitionAct pursuant to the notification issued earlier was not a proper inquiry inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer followed merely the directions contained in the Government Resolution.
5. All these questions have been considered and finally answered in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sadashiv Keru Jamdade v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1977Bom355 , wherein it has been held in the first place that the purpose for which the lands are being acquired was a public purpose because it included the welfare of a large section of the community, that the classification on the basis of the total land could not be said to be arbitrary or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and further that no challenge could be made to the acquisition of land pursuant to notification issued under Section 6 merely because there was a Government Resolution for the guidance of the acquisition officers. We do not find in these petitions any other ground in addition to the grounds on which the land acquisition had been challenged in the petition decided by the abovementioned judgment.
6. All these petitions must, therefore, fail. Rule is discharged in each of them. No order as to costs.
7. Petitions dismissed.