BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER; RADHE SHYAM SHARMA; OM PRAKASH SHARMA AND OTHERS; RAJ MATA SHAILENDRA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions identical questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Undisputedly, a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) exempting application of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 8.12.2008 proposing to acquire the property in question for extending of bathing ghat in view of Mahakumbha Mela of 2010; Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 2.2.2009, however, no possession was ever taken from the petitioners and ultimately, vide order dated 24.4.2009, this Court was pleased to direct to maintain status quo over the property in question. Paragraph Nos. 12, 14, 20, 22 and 25 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 are reproduced hereunder:

(3.) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhy Shyam and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2011 5 SCC 553, in paragraph 77, has held as under :-