(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
(2.) The Petitioner has challenged the acquisition of land under notifications dated 7-10-2005 and 26-10-2006 for acquisition of area of 20,200 sq. meters for the purpose of a Village playground.
(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the present acquisition for a Village playground is wholly unnecessary since an area of 16,140 sq. meters was earlier acquired for the Village playground by the Director of Sports and that playground is next to the land in question. The learned Counsel relies on an earlier order in Writ Petition No.249 of 2006 passed on 21-8-2006 by which this Court noted that the State withdrew the report under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and directed that the parties would accord a fresh opportunity of hearing for consideration of their objection under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the learned Counsel inspite of the aforesaid order this has not been done and the report does not properly consider their objection that the land acquired earlier meets the requirement of the Village for a playground.