BAIJNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is being made to acquisition proceedings initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This notification is dated 17th of February 1989. This was published in the M. P. Rajpatra of 22nd, of February 1989. Urgency provisions were invoked. The notification recites that the provisions of Section 5-A are being dispensed with. Notification under Section 6 of the Act, was issued on 4th of August, 1989. The present petition was filed in October 1989. Interim order was passed directing the respondent Mandi to not to raise any construction on the land which was subject matter of acquisition.

(2.) THE further factual recital in the writ petition is to the effect that the land is situated in a developing town having a population of more than 50,000. It is pleaded that merely mentioning the names of the village was not enough to identify the land in question. It has also been submitted that with regard to this very land earlier notifications were issued in 1985 and these were not pursued to their logical end. This fact is being mentioned with a view to stress that in fact there was no real urgency and the urgency provisions have been invoked mala fide. It has also been mentioned in the petition that there exists a master plan in the area. It is stated that in the master plan the land is supposed to be used for residential purposes and setting up of a Mandi would come in conflict with the master plan. One more legal objection has been raised. This is with regard to the power of the Collector to invoke urgency provisions. According to the petitioner, vide notification Annexure P/12, the Collector was given the power to act on behalf of the State Government when notifications are to be issued under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 17 of the Act. It is however stated that by a latter notification issued on 24th of December 1983, the ambit and scope of the powers which were to be exercised by the Collector were restricted. It was indicated that in case, the land is required for a local authority, in which State had no interest, then it would be necessary to have prior approval of the Commissioner of the Division. This is Annexure P/15 on record. The State has however pointed out that such a sanction was accorded. This sanction was accorded in the month of February, 1989. This is sought to be countered by the petitioners by contending that the acquisition proceedings were taken earlier to the issuance of Annexure 's1'. Notification under Section 4 as noticed above, was issued on 28th of February, 1989. On the basis of the above factual submission following arguments have been raised on behalf of the petitioners :

(3.) THE first argument with regard to invocation of urgency provisions be examined. It is not in dispute that earlier also the respondents had taken steps with a view to acquire this very land for this very purpose. Relevant notification was issued in the year 1985. These were not pursued to its logical end. Taking shelter behind this factual position it is argued that this acquisition was not for such purposes which could not brook a delay of 30 days.