BITANDEVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the writ petitions mentioned above are similar in nature. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, the aforesaid matters are taken up for analogous hearing and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) WRIT Petition No.648/2011 is taken as a leading matter. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under : The petitioners are the land owners/Bhumiswami of the land comprised in Survey Nos.1018 and 1345 situated at village Barhi, Tahsil and District Bhind. The petitioners are farmers and their livelihood is totally based on the aforesaid agricultural land. By letter dated 6.5.2010, a proposal was submitted by Divisional Manager, M.P. Road Development Corporation, Gwalior (respondent No.4) to respondent No.3 -Sub -Divisional Officer -cwm -Land Acquisition Officer, Bhind in respect of acquiring 12.826 hect. land situated in aforesaid village for the purpose of construction of border check -post at Bhind -Itawah Road. The said Sub -Divisional Officer -cum -Land Acquisition Officer was invested/delegated with the powers of "Collector" as defined under section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Collector is specially appointed as "Appropriate Government". A draft notification under section 4(1) of the Act was submitted on 6.7.2010 by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2. On 16.7.2010 a notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in daily newspapers. Vide order sheet dated 4.8.2010 the Sub -Divisional Officer directed for issuance of notices to land owners under section 5A of the Act. In turn, the land owners submitted their objections on 17.8.2010 before the respondent No.3. On 16.9.2010 the Sub -Divisional Officer directed the Revenue Inspector to make inspection of the spot and submit his report. On 8.10.2010 the concerned Revenue Inspector submitted his report to respondent No.3. On 9.11.2010 the respondent No.3 himself rejected the objections preferred by the petitioners without assigning any reasons. On 2.12.2010 notification under section 6 of the Act was published in the daily newspapers. This petition is filed against the notification, Annexures P -1 and P -2. Annexures P -1 and P -2 are the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively.

(3.) ELABORATING the aforesaid, Shri Jain submits that the language of section 4 of the Act is very clear. The appropriate Government/District Collector was under a statutory obligation to form an opinion. He relies on the opening words of section 4(1), which reads "whenever it appears to the". Shri Jain submits that the requirement of this language is that the aforesaid authority has to apply his mind. In support of this, he relied on 2010(1) MPLJ 451 (Malwa I. T. Park Ltd. and others v. State of M.P. and others) and (2005)7 SCC 627 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chennai and others).