DHIROO BHAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued on 18th April 1958 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of land measuring 410.53 acres situated in Khursipar village, Durg Tehsil, which includes some land belonging to him.

(2.) THE material facts are that on 16th. May 1949 a notification was issued by the Government under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and published in the Central Provinces and Berar Gazette dated 20th May 1949. It was stated in that notification that land located in nine villages enumerated in the Schedule to the notification, was likely to be needed for the construction of an iron and steel plant at Bhilai. This notification was followed by a notification issued on 1st September 1955 under section 6 of the Act for the acquisition of lands 'specified in the Schedule to the notification. THE purpose for which the land was needed was stated to be the erection of an iron and steel plant. In the acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the above notification under section 6, land belonging to the petitioner and located in Khursipar village was not acquired. THEn on 18th April 1958 the Government issued another notification under section 6 of the Act for the acquisition of 410.53 acres of land in village Khursipar for the Bhilai Steel Plant. This land included twenty-five acres of land belonging to the petitioner and his brother, who is respondent No. 4 in this petition. THE petitioner and his brother participated, and launched their objections, in the acquisition proceedings started after the issue of the notification dated the 18th April 1958. In those proceedings, when an award was made, the petitioner and his brother filed an application under section 18 of the Act, and the matter ultimately came up to this Court in First Appeal No. 272 of 1959, which was decided on 13th July 1962. In that appeal, a remand order was made by this Court and the matter is now pending before the First Additional District Judge of Durg.

(3.) IF the very important fact that in the Calcutta case only one notification under section 6 of the Act was issued and it was after the termination of acquisition proceedings following it and after the rendering of an award in respect of certain lands specified in the notification that proceedings for the acquisition of further land were resumed on the strength of the same notification under section 6, is borne in mind, then it is clear that the said case only lays down that if once acquisition proceedings are started following a declaration under section 6 of the Act resulting in the making of an award or awards relating to the acquisition of land belonging to one owner or different owners, then on the strength of that notification under section 6 proceedings for the acquisition of land covered by the notification under section 6 but not acquired in the proceedings already held cannot be taken. The case is not an authority for the proposition that once following a declaration under section 6 certain land included in the declaration made therein is acquired, then the remainder of the land cannot be acquired by taking proceedings after the issue of a fresh notification under section 6 or that the earlier notification exhausts itself. In fact, in the Calcutta case(supra) the question of effectiveness of a notification issued in that case under section 4 was not at all considered. We do not find anything in the Act which precludes the Government from issuing notification dated the 18th April 1958 under section 6 of the Act for the acquisition of further land in village Khursipar in regard to which a notification had already been issued under section 4.