JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are assailing the acquisition of land in this writ petition pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act on two grounds. First that notification is vague inasmuch as purpose is mentioned as "residential", no other indication is given. The second objection is that enquiry under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act was made by the land Acquisition Officer, matter then travelled to Collector and thereafter to commissioner. Commissioner as per Order (P-8), dated 29th May, 2002 has simply expressed his agreement with the view expressed by the Land Acquisition Officer and Collector, it can not be said to be a decision rendered by the commissioner on merit under Section 5-A of the Act.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that petitioners are owners of land situate at Village Bada Buzurg, Tehsil Burhanpur, District Khandwa. Notification (P-3) under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued for the purpose of acquisition of land. Pursuant thereto petitioners submitted their objections, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held and the Land Acquisition officer submitted the report dated 14-5-2002 contained in order-sheets (P-9 ). Collector forwarded the report to the Commissioner for appropriate action on 15-5-2002. Thereafter Commissioner has passed the order which was communicated by the Deputy Commissioner as per letter (P-8), dated 29th may, 2002. Petitioners submit that notification (P-3) is vague inasmuch as in column 6 of the notification purpose is mentioned as "residential", nothing else is mentioned in Para 6 of the Notification. Thus, notification issued under section 4 is vague and liable to be quashed. It is also averred by the petitioners that Commissioner has not dealt with the objections of the petitioners and has merely agreed with the recommendations made by Land Acquisition Officer and Collector, there is no proper decision rendered on the objections of the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. Petitioners have submitted that land is reserved for various other purposes as apparent from letter (P- 6), that is for construction of the main road, residential purpose, etc. Therefore, land can not be acquired for the purpose different than made in the development plan and as mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) A return has been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3/m. P. Housing board. It is contended in the return that acquisition has been properly made. There is no vagueness in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, declaration under Section 6 was also issued on 30-8-2002, decision has been rendered by the Commissioner in accordance with law. It is further submitted that for development 14. 68 hectares of land is required for development of small township in which various kinds of civil amenities like shopping complex, community hall, school, play ground, open space and roads are going to be constructed. The land in question will be developed in accordance with the master plan.