(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the land acquisition award dated 18-2-2011 (Annexure-P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/A/82, year 2009-2010 village Mova, Patwari Halka No. 109, R.I. Circle Raipur. The petitioner is owner of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 752, 754 and 755/3, Patwari Halka No. 109/39 village Mova, Raipur. For acquiring a part of Khasra No. 755/3, area 0.251 hectares belonging to the petitioner, amongst other lands, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (henceforth 'the Act') on 14-7-2010 (Annexure-P-5) and thereafter, declaration under section 6 of the Act was published on 9-11-2010 (Annexure-P-6), notice u/s. 9(3) of the Act was issued on 14-12-2010 for hearing on 7-1-2011 and thereafter award was passed on 18-2-2011. After passing of the award notice for disbursement of compensation under section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 10-3-2011 vide Annexure-P-10.
(2.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is residing at Itwari Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra and therefore she was never served with any notice under any of the provisions and hence the acquisition having been made without notice to the petitioner is illegal and further that urgency clause under section 17(1) of the Act has wrongly been invoked disentitling the petitioner and other landowners to raise objection to the acquisition proceedings. It has also been urged that the compensation amount/expenditure in construction of road has been shared by the C.G. Council of Science and Technology and C.G. Housing Board, however, there being no mention about this fact that the land is also required for C.G. Housing Board and part of compensation will be borne by the said Board, the acquisition proceeding is mala fide and bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRs vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2011 5 SCC 553 and Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 9 SCC 354 to argue that invocation of urgency clause under section 17(1) of the Act is illegal as there was no urgency in the matter.
(3.) Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, learned Advocate General appearing for the State has argued that in the subject acquisition proceedings, land of the petitioner along with the land belonging to 10 other holders have been included for construction of approach road to the Science City and Regional Science Center to be established by the National Science Museum Council under the Cultural Ministry, Government of India and for establishment of this ambitious project, the State Government has allotted 40 acres of land at village Daldal Seoni, Tahsil and District Raipur. The subject land belonging to the petitioner along with 10 other holders are of immense importance for construction of approach road for the facility and convenience of the public visiting the Science City and thus the acquisition has been made for public purpose and that since the construction of Science city is complete, the invocation of urgency clause is perfectly in accordance with law. It has also been argued that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 were published in the official gazette as well as in local Newspaper, therefore, there is absolute compliance of the provisions of the Act. If the petitioner is not residing at Raipur, the fault cannot be found with the respondents and that notices were always sent to the petitioner's addresses mentioned in the revenue records. It has been vehemently argued that challenge to the acquisition cannot be made after passing of the award and obtaining possession as has been settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of decisions.