TECHNOPARK Vs. SURESH BABU. C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 07/06/2012 in W.P.C.No.29890 of 2010 and 11709 of 2011. Appeal Nos.1624 of 2012 and 1592 of 2012 are preferred by the State and other two appeals are preferred by the Techno Park represented by its Chief Executive Officer, beneficiary of the acquisition in question.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY properties of the party respondents came to be notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wherein the acquiring authority also invoked urgency clause 17(4) of the Act. Ext.P9 was the composite notification dated 21/7/2010. The owners of the land approached the learned Single Judge in the above two writ petitions contending that there was no urgency clause at all to proceed with the acquisition as the decision to acquire and approval by the authority was as early as in 2008 and notification came only in the year 2010. Apart from this, they also raised several contentions with regard to alignment of the road which passes through the properties of the party respondents. In that regard, the party respondents explained the difficulties and hardship that are going to be faced by the owners on account of the present alignment chosen in the master plan.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader, supporting the arguments of the beneficiaries to certain extent, submits that the officer concerned was under the impression that the entire notification at Ext.P9 was quashed and therefore they proceeded to issue another preliminary notification on 16/7/2012.