HARISINGH Vs. STATE OF. M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition, may be stated, in brief, thus: The petitioners are Bhumiswamis of land bearing survey No. 129 and No. l30 situated in village Damodarpura, Tahsil Jawad, District Mandsaur. The said land as also other adjoining lands were acquired by the respondent -State for establishment of a cement factory for which notification dated 8 -2 -1983 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure -A) was published. This notification further stated that the provisions of section 5 -A of the Land Acquisition Act shall not be applicable in respect of the said lands as in the opinion of the State Government provisions of section 17 (1) of the said Act are applicable in this respect. Subsequently, notification dated 23 -2 -1983 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published (Annexure -B). Thereafter notification dated 26 -2 -83 (Annexure -C) under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act inviting claims for compensation was also published. Accordingly on 28 -2 -1983, the Land Acquisition Officer sent a letter Annexure -D to Tahsildar to obtain possession and deliver it to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Mandsaur. Accordingly, the Tahsildar obtained possession from the petitioners and other in the month of February and March, 1983 and gave it to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Mandsaur.

(3.) IN this petition, the principal grievance of the petitioners has been that this acquisition is in fact not needed by the respondent -Government, but is for the requirement of the respondent Company, namely, The Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd., Birlagram, Nagda; that there was not urgency to do away with the objections to be raised by the objectors; that this is a colourable exercise of power in hurriedly trying to acquire the land which in fact was never required by the respondent -State, but for respondent No.4 and thus the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Land Acquisition Act relating to acquisition for companies, i.e. provisions of sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 have not been followed; that the' word 'acquisition' has not been defined anywhere and consently the entire acquisition proceedings being vitiated by law deserve to be quashed.