KAMALA BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) One of the aforesaid reliefs is for the quashment of order dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure-P/5) whereby the respondent no.2/ Collector has rejected the representation of the petitioners after giving them opportunity as directed by this Court in W.P. No.20685/2011. The entire endeavour has been made for the quashment of notification dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure-P/6) issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "Act of 1894") because no inquiry was conducted as per requirement of provisions of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and eventually the subsequent notification was passed under Section 6 of the said Act. The objections of petitioners have been rejected by the Collector on the ground that it was not necessary to conduct any inquiry under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 or to provide any opportunity to raise any objection and decide the same because the provision of Section 17 of the Act of 1894 has been invoked which clearly mentions that if the urgency clause is invoked it is not necessary to invoke any of the provisions under Section 5A of the Act of 1894.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioners if the special power in case of urgency was to be invoked as envisaged under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 there should be a notification alongwith the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Having not done so at the time of issuance of notification which was published on 12.07.2011, the same could not have been given after more than 17 days on 29.07.2011 (Annexure-R/2) whereby the Commissioner Indore Division Indore directed the Collector Khandwa by giving his consent to proceed under Section 17 of the Act of 1894. Thus, the notification under section 4(1) (Annexure-P/6) and notification under Section 6 (Annexure-R/3) be quashed. Learned counsel submits that in the notification of Section 4, it is not at all mentioned that objections under section 5A of the Act are not required to be taken and heard. Hence, it has been put-forth by him that how the land owners would come to know that urgency clause is invoked.