KISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the owners of land bearing Khasra No. 89/1/1/ as also Khasra No. 88/1/1/1/ having an area of 1.186 and 0.587 hectares respectively in Village Bhanpur in the district of Bhopal. Respondent No. 3 a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act by letter dated 18.10.1995 wrote to the State Government for acquisition of 4.38 acres of land at village Bhanpur for extension of the bulk petroleum depot as also for provision of green belt for safety. The State Government in exercise of its power under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', by notification dated 1st February, 1999, declared its intention for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners; as the same is or likely to be required for public purpose. Public purpose indicated in the aforesaid notification is for extension of bulk petroleum depot as also for providing green belt for safety. The State Government further exercised its urgency power as provided under section 17(1) of the Act and directed that the provision of section 5 -A of the Act shall not be applicable in relation to the acquisition. Thereafter, notification under section 6 dated 19.4.1999 was notified in the official Gazette as also published in the newspaper (Annex. P/2) in which it was stated that the land is required for public purpose.

(2.) BY this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for quashing of the notification dated 1st February, 1999 (Annexure P/1) issued under section 4 of the Act as also the notification dated 19.4.1999 (Annex. P/2) under section 6 of the Act referred to above.

(3.) MR . R.N. Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that respondents having admitted that the Competent Authority granted approval for acquisition of land and for issuance of notification under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) of the Act on 6.2.1999 and the Gazette notification being dated 1.2.1999, clearly go to show that the respondents ventured to issue the Gazette notification even prior to the approval of the same by the Competent Authority.