SURILA KHATRI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS, having lost before the learned Single Judge in the Writ petition, are before us in this intra Court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters patent.

(2.) APPELLANTS claim that they are the joint owners of plot bearing survey No. 3393/3 admeasuring 0. 618 hectare situated in Ujjain. It is alleged that they had purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 20-11-2001 from Shashikant and other two co-owners. The plot in question and other adjoining parcel of land were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings in which Land Acquisition Officer, Ujjain passed the award on 15-2-2002 pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 50 (7) of the M. P. Nagar Tatha gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam" for short) read with the Notification issued under Section 4 and followed by section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" for short ). Appellants challenged before the learned Single Judge, acquisition of their plot bearing Survey No. 3393/3 on various grounds. Learned single Judge, after hearing Counsel for respective parties, found no merit and substance in the writ petition and dismissed the same by Order dated 21-10-2002, which, as mentioned above, is under challenge before us.

(3.) BEFORE us, Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that as the plot in question was not included and shown in either of the Notifications issued under Section 50 (7) of the Adhiniyam or section 4 of the Act, therefore, the same could not be acquired. He further submitted that entire proceedings lapsed as Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued after lapse of one year from the date of Notification issued under Section 4. Lastly it was contended that the award was passed after 2 years from the date of Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, thus, delay was fatal to the acquisition. Lastly, Shri Bagadiya, also urged that dead witnesses signed delivery of possession Panchnama that shows that possession was not taken from the appellants and they still continue to be in possession of plot in question.