BAWA SATYAPAUL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise identical issue with singular but important difference on a fact which has resulted in varying results.

(2.) NOTIFICATION under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") was issued on 25. 11. 1980 covering six revenue estates, including the revenue estate of village Chattarpur, land whereof was sought to be acquired. The land of the petitioner is situate in village Chattarpur and was covered by that notification. Objections under Section 5-A of the Act were invited. Large number of persons filed their objections which, however, did not find favour with the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC ). On the basis of report of the LAC, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the competent authority on 7. 6. 1985 thereby acquiring the land. The petitioners in these two writ petitions have challenged the validity of the aforesaid notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act.

(3.) WE may note that in WP (C) No. 2783/1995 the petitioner has referred to some other writ petitions which were filed at that time and pending consideration and, inter alia, submits that writ petition of the petitioner raises an identical and similar question of law as raised in those writ petitions. Question of law which the petitioner raises is that though Section 4 notification was issued on 25. 11. 1980, declaration was not made within three years thereafter and on the expiry of three years, Notification under Section 4 lapsed. Therefore, it was not open to the respondents to issue declaration under Section 6 of the Act after a lapse of three years from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act thereof. Thus, such a declaration is not only illegally, unconstitutional, unwarranted, but is also barred by time. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed WP (C) No. 649/1984 (which was obviously filed before the declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 7. 6. 1985) challenging Section 4 Notification on the ground that it had lapsed after a period of three years. However, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition as, according to him, when it came up for consideration, the division Bench felt that the same was premature. We may point out that neither the date on which the petition was dismissed as withdrawn is given nor the copy of the order is placed along with this writ petition.