PARMANAND AND HARIRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition petitioners are praying for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue notices under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners submit that the award was passed, but notice of passing the award was not issued. Thus, they have been deprived of their statutory right under Section 12 of the Act and consequently of seeking reference under Section 18. It is the further grievance the petitioners that payment has not been made of the additional compensation at 12% on the market value, and 30% solatium under Sections 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) and interest at 9% under Section 28 of the Act. These payments cannot be denied. Land was acquired for the purpose of construction of dam for supply of water to city of Sagar. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 2-12-97; declaration under Section 6 was published on 23-1-98 after passing of the award (P-4); notices have not been given under Sub-section (2) of Section 12.

(2.) IN the return filed by the respondents it is contended that it is false that notices under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 have not been given to the petitioners. Collector got served the notices and petitioners duly received the same; memo dated 14-5-98 (Annexure R-1) has been placed on record. Appearance was put on 18-5-98; in any case the petitioners came to know of the award, but no application under Section 18 of the Act has been filed

(3.) ). Shri N. M. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case where notice (R-1) was issued on 14-5-98 to Shri Puranlal Patel, Patwari of village cannot be treated to be a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act; award was drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer on 6-5-98 and sent for approval of the Commissioner as per order dated 2-9-98. Thus, the notice in the submission of the petitioner's Counsel cannot be said to be a notice to petitioners under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act