HETRAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the entire land acquisition proceedings, notifications issued under the provisions of Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894") as well as the award dated 29-9-2009 (Annexure - P/2 page 82 of the paper book).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are residents of village Barmuda, Tahsil & District Raigarh. THE State Government had proposed to issue a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 for the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners for construction of canal under the Kelo Project, according to the petitioners, the said notification dated 24-2-2007 was published in the daily newspapers on 3-3-2007 (Annexure - P/1 page 18 of the paper book). THE petitioners submitted their objections on 23-3-2007 to the said notification. THE main objection of the petitioners was that the rakba of the land, trees, tube wells, houses constructed over the land in dispute have not been properly assessed for determining the compensation and every thing has been done by the respondent authorities without making spot inspection. THE Sub Divisional Officer without considering the objections raised by the petitioners in its letter and spirit, rejected the same and forwarded the matter for its declaration under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 1894. THEreafter, on 24-8-2007, Section 6 declaration was issued and the same was published in the newspaper on 4-9-2007 (Annexure - P/1 page 19 of the petition). Subsequently, the award was passed on 29-9-2009 after lapse of more than two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 (Annexure - P/2 page 82 of the petition) in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition.

(3.) INDISPUTABLY, Section 4 notification dated 24-2-2007 was published in the newspaper on 3-3-2007. Thereafter, objection was filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 on 23-3-2007. The Land Acquisition Officer, it appears, having considered the objections, issued the declaration under Section 6 on 24-8-2007, which was published on 4-9-2009 in the newspaper. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded further with the land acquisition proceedings and passed the award dated 29-9-2009, which was passed after lapse of about 2 years 25 days. Thus, the requirement of Section 11A of the Act, 1894, that if the award is not passed within a period of two years, the proceedings shall lapse, prima facie, appears to be applicable.