MAHRANIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this intra-Court appeal assail is to the order dated 5-12-2002 passed in W. P. No. 4361/2002.

(2.) THE essential facts which are requisite to be stated are that a notification was issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') for acquiring certain land for a company, namely, J. P. Bela Cement Plant, respondent No. 5 herein. A notification was issued for dispensation of enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act treating the acquisition meant for public purposes. It is pertinent to mention here that the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded for determination of quantum and the present petitioners appeared before him as is perceptible from Annexure R-3 filed by the respondent/company. 2-A. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended by the present appellants that acquisition of the land can not be for the public purpose and, therefore, all the necessary provisions of the Act were to he strictly followed, but as the same had not been done the notification has to pave the path of vitiation. It was also put forth that though the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award yet that would not create any kind of impediment in quashing of the notification as the award is basically a nullity. The learned Single Judge addressed himself to the contentions urged on behalf of the writ petitioners and came to hold that the pleadings in the petition were absolutely sketchy and scanty to attract the provisions for the purpose of acquisition for a private company; that the award having been passed is beyond assail as per the law laid down in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig and Ors. , AIR 2000 SC 671; that the petitioners had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and participated in the proceedings of the award and, therefore, they would not be entitled to get any relief having waived their rights; and that there was delay of two years in challenging the notification before the High Court and hence, the extra-ordinary jurisdiction was not invocable.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. S. L. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Choubey for the appellants.