PRATIBHA NEMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts and Contentions :

(2.) The Commissioner accorded his approval by a communication dated 29-1-1996. This resulted in the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 30th June, 1996 by the Collector and Ex-officio Deputy Secretary to Government, to whom it appears the powers were delegated. By the same Notification, the enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with. It was indicated in the Notification that the land map could be inspected in the office of the SDO, Indore and General Manager, District Industries Centre. A few days later i.e., on 9-2-1996, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. The Collector (Land Acquisition) was directed to take possession after the expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of notice under Section 9(2) of the Act. Before the possession was taken, the writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution were filed and an order of status quo was granted. The writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed. In the meanwhile, it appears that an interim award was made for a sum of Rs. 2,14,91,115 representing 80% of the estimated compensation amount. The SLPs filed in this Court were disposed of on 11-10-1996 on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh that the Notification under Section 6 will be withdrawn and the procedure under Section 5-A will be followed. Accordingly, the Collector, Indore District published a Notification on 15-10-1996 withdrawing the declaration under Section 6. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted a report under Section 5-A overruling the objections put forward by the appellants. On a perusal of the report, the Collector as well as the Commissioner decided to go ahead with the acquisition. Accordingly, a fresh Notification under Section 6 was issued on 3-1-1997. As in the earlier Notification, the public purpose was mentioned as 'establishment of a diamond park'. This was again challenged by the aggrieved landholders including the appellants. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions which were filed by the present appellants having interest in about 63 acres in Survey No. 684. Against that judgment, these appeals by special leave have come up. This Court, while taking note of certain additional facts disclosed in I.A. No. 2/2001, passed an order on 29-8-2001 formulating four questions in respect of which the findings of the High Court were called for. The following are the four questions :

(3.) The matters were directed to be listed on receipt of the findings of the High Court with a further direction not to treat the cases as part-heard.