DILIP KUMAR GOUSHALAWALE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellants, five in number, have called in question the defensibility of the order dated 31-7-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 3330/99 = 2002 (4) M. P. H. T. 514 and penetrability of the order dated 25-2-2002 passed in M. C. C. No. 1071 of 2002.

(2.) THE facts which are necessitous to be adumbrated are the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') preferred the aforesaid writ petition to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and further to quash the notifications issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) and notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and the award passed under Section 11 of the Act. The said documents were brought on record as Annexures P-10 to P-11. Apart from that there was prayer for quashment of Annexures P-27 and P-28. It is relevant to state here that by Annexures P-27 and P-28 there has been refusal by the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition of the land.

(3.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioners, a notice under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Act was issued on 15-12-1988 invoking urgency clause. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5-5-1989 and published in M. P. Gazette on 29-5-1989. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal on 23-5-1991. Initially the petitioners filed a writ petition forming the subject-matter of W. P. No. 2857 of 1997 challenging the validity of the notification as well as the award. During the pendency of the writ petition, they submitted a representation to the State Government to denotify the land from acquisition. Being advised they withdrew the writ petition and this Court accordingly granted, liberty to file a fresh one. They submitted a representation to the State Government. In the representation they putforth that in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, they were neither heard nor any intimation was sent to them about the passing of the award and in that situation there was no justification to take possession from them. As the representation was not dealt with in quite promptitude the petitioners filed W. P. No. 3046/1998 to decide their representation preferred under Section 48 of the Act. This Court by order dated 10-10-1998 directed the State Government to consider the representation of the petitioners. Eventually the representation was rejected making a mention that the award had already been passed on 30th August, 1991; that the State Government had taken possession on 16-2-1992; and that delivered the same to the Housing Board. Quite apart from that it was also mentioned that the mutation in the name of the Housing Board had also been done on 30th June, 1995 and hence, it was not possible to release the land in favour of the petitioners. The said order was passed on 7-7-1999.