KUMAR BAN GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the notice dated 03.12.2011 (Annexure - P/1), notification dated August, 2009 (according to the return of the respondent No.4, notification dated 25.9.2009) (Annexure - P/3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894"), notification dated 04.12.2009 (Annexure - P/5) issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and the notification dated 30.01.2010 (Annexure - P/6) issued under Section 9 of the Act, 1894. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in short, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are the owners of land admeasuring 41 acres containing dwelling house, trees, ponds etc. THE petitioners are living in the joint family. THE land is situated at village - Ghorapat, Patwari Halka No. 27, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba (for brevity "the land in dispute"). In the month of August, 2009 (Annexure - P/3), the Collector issued a notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 for acquiring the lands admeasuring 38.866 hectares for construction of Ash Dyke of the respondent No.4/NTPC Limited.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, when their objections have not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities, the petitioners preferred a petition before this Court, being W.P.(C) No. 2525 of 2010, challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 13.07.2010 (Annexure - P/9). Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an application before this Court, being M.C.C. No. 580 of 2010, for modification of the order dated 13.07.2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2525 of 2010. The said M.C.C. was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.10.2010 (Annexure - P/10) with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedy, that may be available to the applicants therein under the provisions of law. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred review petition, being review petition No.129 of 2010, which was also dismissed by order dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure - P/11). Subsequently, the petitioners preferred writ appeal, being W.A. No. 60 of 2011, against the order dated 13.07.2010. The said writ appeal was dismissed by learned Division Bench vide order dated 25.03.2011 (Annexure - P/12). Thereagainst, the petitioners preferred a Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court, being SLP (C) No. 15888 of 2011.