RAMDIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ appeal the challenge is to legality of the order of dismissal of the writ petitions passed by the Single Bench on 4-5-2009 assailing the validity of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and declaration under section 6 including the notification issued under section 17 dated 23-6-2008.

(2.) Petitioners have submitted that with a view to set up the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, land admeasuring 427.08 acres situated at village Sidhikhurd was sought to be acquired. The petitioners owned approximately 25 acres of land. Notification issued under section 4 was vague, thus the petitioners had no knowledge about the acquisition proceedings or the proceedings taken up under section 5A of the Act. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was also illegal. The land was sought to be acquired for 'public purpose' for setting up Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project whereas acquisition was for and on behalf of respondent No. 6 Sasan Power Limited. It was mandatory upon the respondents to mention in the notification that the acquisition was for a company. The prayer was also made to direct respondent-company to give benefit as per 2007 rehabilitation package or a better package and not in accordance with the 1992 rehabilitation package/policy. Notification under section 17(3) was assailed on the ground that enquiry under section 5A had already been taken up, therefore, notification under section 17 of the Act could not have been issued. It was necessary to comply and follow the procedure prescribed under Rules 3,4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Company Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963).

(3.) The respondent/State in its return contended that the notification under section 4 of the Act was not vague. Opportunity of hearing and raising objection under section 5A of the Act was given to the affected persons. The notification under section 17 has not been given effect to by the State. The oustee shall be given the prevailing rehabilitation package. Respondent No. 6 is a Government owned subsidiary company of the Power Financial Corporation Limited which is a Government of India Undertaking under section 3(cc) of the Act and, therefore, contention of the petitioners regarding strict compliance of Part-VII of the Act are misplaced and misconceived.