VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, land acquisition proceedings taken in hand by the State Government to acquire certain land belonging to the petitioners in village Chawani of tahsil and district Durg have been challenged as illegal and void and issue of appropriate writ has been claimed to put an end to the said proceedings.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are these. By a notification dated 16-5-1949 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called "the Act") the State Government declared that lands in certain villages including the village Chawani was likely to be needed for a public purpose namely the erection of Iron and Steel plant. After necessary inquiry some land in village Chawani was acquired in the year 1956. Thereafter no further land in particular was proposed to be acquired in village Chawani, although lands in other villages for the same purpose were declared needed in the year 1955. We are however, not concerned with the lands in those villages. Then all of a sudden a notification dated 2-8-1960 was issued under Section 6 of the Act proposing to acquire further 486-17 acres of land in village Chawani as also in other two villages Supela and Kosa and the area as was proposed was demarcated and shown on the map kept in the office of the Collector, Durg, for inspection. The said notification also further announced as required by Section 17 (4) the decision of the State Government that provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the proceedings.

(3.) It is this notification of the year 1960 under Section 6 of the Act that is being impugned as being void not being preceded by any fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act with respect to further acquisition thereunder, the prior notification eleven years back in the year 1949 under Section 4 (1) not being subsisting and available. It is the case of the petitioners that on a fair construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, the State Government once for all has to determine what particular area in the village notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, it would acquire and to riotify the same further under Section 6, and once that is done no further area in that particular village is liable to be notified afresh under Section 6 of that Act without a fresh notification under Section 4(1) and fresh enquiry under Sections 5 and 5-A of the same. The notification under Section 4 (1), it is suggested exhausts itself and is rendered ineffective by the notification under Section 6 and acquisition of land in pursuance thereof. This, it is contended, is the normal rule one gets on a fair reading of the scheme of the Act and is not liable to be departed from, especially where the decision to acquire any particular area in the village notified is being taken after a lapse of years as in the instant case of 11 years. The obvious infirmities inherent in such delayed action it is submitted, not being liable to be remedied in terms of the provisions of the Act could never be intended to be countenanced also by the framers of the Act. Hence, it is prayed that the acquisition proceedings. in pursuance of the notification dated 2-81960 under Section 6 of the Act be wholly struck down as ultra vires.