RAVI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Challenge is made to the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Notification under Section 4 of the Act makes a declaration dispensing with the compliance of section 5 -A and thus obviating the need to hear objection. This was issued on 18th April, 1984. This is Annexure P -4. Notification under section ft was issued on 25th May, 1084. Copy of this notification has since been placed on the record as Annexure P -5. The total area which was subject -matter of this acquisition was 4.505 hectares. It is stated that the petitioner acquired the knowledge about the acquisition proceedings when notice under section 9 of the Act came to be served on the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notification on the ground that the requirement of law in the matter of publication of the notification in the locality was not adhered to and as a matter of fact there is complete absence of publication of the notification in the locality in question. The requisite averments are made in para 7 of the writ petition. This reads as under : - That no individual notice was given to the petitioner of either of the two Notifications. Till this date, local publicity as required by Sec.4 of the Act has not been done in the area or vicinity thereof where the land is situated. Either of the notifications does not make any reference to the Mill, office premises, residential quarters, well and the wire fencing winch stand over the land. The notifications do not mention the locality where the land is situated with reference to the Municipal Ward Numbers or name.

(3.) IT is also contended by the petitioner that the State authorities have not applied their mind to the situation. The area in question is located within the municipal limits but in the notification Annexure P -6 land is described as being located in a village. It is further contended that the fact that the land has been identified by khasra numbers again shows that there is a lack of application of mind, because as per the petitioner the land is within the municipal limits of Ashok Nagar and should have been identified with reference to municipal ward numbers. The petitioner also contended that this was not a case where provisions of Section 5 -A could be dispensed with. The purpose for which the acquisition was made was not such a purpose, which could not brook delay of for more than 30 days.