RAMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that for construction of railway line certain lands were acquired and award was also passed. The petitioners have no objection with regard to the initial acquisition of land. The grievance of the petitioners is against the supplementary acquisition of land. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that a notification under Sec. 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "Act, 2013") was published in the official gazette on 13/9/2019 and it was also published in the newspaper Swadesh on 5/9/2019 and in other newspapers on 19/8/2019. Thereafter, the notification under Sec. 19 of the Act, 2019 was published in Dainik Bhaskar on 13/8/2019 and in the official gazette on 25/9/2020 and the award has been passed on 27/12/2021 by SDO/LAO, Nagod, District Satna. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the draft notification issued under Sec. 11 of the Act, 2013 was vague. The details of the lands were not mentioned. Thereafter, the notification under Sec. 19 of the Act should have been published within a period of one year, otherwise as per Sec. 19 (7) of the Act, 2013, the preliminary notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded unless and until the appropriate government extends the period of 12 months. It is submitted that the preliminary notification under Sec. 11 of the Act, 2013 was issued on 13/9/2019, whereas the notification under Sec. 19 of the Act, 2013 was published in the official gazette on 25/9/2020, i.e. after one year. Furthermore, it is submitted that the award was passed on 27/12/2021, i.e. after more than 12 months of issuance of notification under Sec. 19 of the Act, 2013. (It appears that SDO prepared proposed award on 27/12/2021 and it was approved by Collector on 10/1/2022). By referring to Sec. 25 of the Act, 2013 it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the award should have been passed within a period of 12 months from the date of publication of notification under Sec. 19 of the Act, 2013 and if no award is made, then the entire proceedings for acquisition of land shall lapse unless and until the period is extended by the appropriate government. It is further submitted that in the present case the period was never extended. It is further submitted that three railway lines are already in existence and by the supplementary land acquisition, additional land has been acquired in a most arbitrary manner with no public purpose. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others reported in 2005 (7) SCC 627 and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi and others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the State that petitioners did not challenge the notification issued under Sec. 11 of Act, 2013. The notification under Sec. 11 of Act, 2013 was issued on 22/7/2019. The petitioners allowed the acquisition proceedings to complete and only after passing of award dtd. 27/12/2021, the present petition has been filed. It is further submitted that even otherwise it appears that petitioners filed their objections for the first time on 14/9/2020 and did not approach the Court immediately thereafter, as a result, much water has flown under the bridge. It is further submitted that notification under Sec. 11 of Act, 2013 was published in official gazette on 13/9/2019, whereas it was published in the local newspaper on 19/8/2019 and in Jan Sandesh newspaper on 5/9/2019. The notification under Sec. 19 of Act, 2013 was published in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 13/8/2020, in official gazette on 21/9/2020 and as per the proposed award dtd. 27/12/2021 the notification under Sec. 19 of Act, 2013 was also locally published on 30/7/2020. Thus, it is submitted that notification under Sec. 19 of Act, 2013 was issued within a period of one year from the date of notification issued under Sec. 11 of Act, 2013. So far as award dtd. 27/12/2021 is concerned, the counsel for the respondents by referring to the internal page no.3 of award, submitted that in the light of the provisions of Sec. 25 of Act, 2013 the Collector had extended the period to pass the award, therefore, the award dtd. 27/12/2021 was within the extended period and thus, it cannot be said that the award was passed after one year of notification under Sec. 19 of Act, 2013. Thus, it is submitted that the acquisition proceedings were neither rescinded nor have lapsed.