RAM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition on 6-1-00 and were aggrieved by action being taken for acquiring their land by invoking the emergency clause as contained under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) FACTS which are relevant for deciding the present petition are that petitioners are owners of agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 197 and 213 situated at Villages Vaishpura, Lahar, District Bhind. According to the 0etitioners respondent No. 3 was member of Legislative Assembly from Lahar constituency and various land indicated in Para 5. 3 of the petition situated at Villages Vaishpura, Chibeoli belonging to respondent No. 3 and his relatives and by misusing his office the said respondent has compelled the Govt. to take action for acquisition of the land in such a manner that his lands also get irrigated but at the same time his land is not acquired by the Govt. According to the petitioner a scheme was sanctioned in the year 1972 for building the Bhander and Lahar Minor Canal. Even though the scheme was sanctioned in the year 1972 no work was undertaken for construction of the canal but when respondent No. 3 was elected as a member of Legislative Assembly and subsequently when he became Minister in the Cabinet at Madhya Pradesh, he started initiating the action for construction of the canal. At his instance and to give him undue benefit action is taken now after more than 28 years for construction of the canal and after 28 years in the year 1999 it is argued that proceedings for execution taken by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and preventing the submission of objection under Section 5 (A) is arbitrary and illegal action.

(3.) PLACING heavy reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR1998 SC 2504 , JT1998 (4 )SC 601a , 1998 (4 )SCALE73 , (1998 )6 SCC1 , [1998 ]3 SCR643 , so also taking me through the documents available on record, Shri H. D. Gupta argued that invoking of emergency clause in the facts and circumstances of the case is not at all warranted. It is argued by him that to give undue benefit to respondent No. 3 the original plan for construction of the canal was changed and in a malafide manner action taken invoking the emergency clause for acquisition of the land and for prohibiting the petitioner from submitting the objection is challenged in this petition.