(1.) BOTH the above writ petitions have been filed praying to issue Writs of Certiorari respectively calling for the records of the third and first respondents in their proceedings dated 8. 2. 1996 in relation to the acquisition of lands to the extent of 0. 13. 0 and 0. 10. 5 hectares respectively and quash the same.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the notification under Section 4 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been made on 30. 4. 1997 and that a publication by substituted service has been made under Section 4 (2) of the Act. THE contention of the petitioners is that instead of service of notice to all the interested parties, including the petitioners, mere substituted service ordered by the respondents is improper, as a result of which, the petitioners were not in a position to partake the enquiry the proceedings under section 5-A.
(3.) THEREFORE, no definite conclusion could be arrived at to hold that at the time of issuance of notice, particularly under Section 4 (1)of the Act, either the names of such interested persons find place in the revenue records or is brought to the notice of the District Collector by either source. So far as the case in hand is concerned, even though it is claimed on the part of the petitioner that during the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act, one of their brothers informed the enquiry officer that the petitioners were also interested persons regarding the lands which are sought to be acquired and in spite of such revelations, regardless of the same, the authorities have proceeded with the enquiry without initiating any effective step to hear the petitioners also prior to deciding the matter. However, it comes to be seen that publications have been effected in the locality, besides issuance of notice to those persons whose names were found in the revenue records, and therefore, there is reason on the part of the Land Acquisition officer to have taken into confidence only those names which were available on record to be the genuinely interested persons and have carried on with the acquisition proceedings. More so, when it comes to be reported on the part of the learned government advocate (writs) that the acquisition having come to a close by passing of the award and handing over the possession of the property to the beneficiaries and that they have also constructed buildings, nothing survives and there is no point in going back to the stage of 4 (1) notification and hence, at this distant point of time regarding the service effected and enquiry conducted, it could only be decided sufficient for the purpose as required under law, and therefore, this Court is not able to substitute anything to the prayer of the petitioners in both the above writ petitions and in result, they become only liable to be dismissed and the same is decided accordingly. In result, for the reasons assigned above, both the writ petitions do not merit acceptance and they are dismissed as such. No costs. .