YOGESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition with regard to cancellation/withdrawal of acquisition of the petitioner's land Survey No. 300/4 and 300/7 area 1. 720 hectares situated in village Barwani District Barwani. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was the owner of the aforesaid land and a Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition, Act (for short "the Act") was published on 1-12-2001 by the Collector, Barwani applying emergency clause under S. 17 of the Act. It was mentioned in the Notification that the area of the land 102. 087 hectares situated in Kasba Barwani was required for rehabilitation under the sardar Sarovar Project, a public purpose. The Notification was also published in the Official Gazette on 14-10-2001. Another Notification was published on 20-12-2001, declaring that the land is required under S. 6 of the Act. The aforesaid land mentioned above was sought to be acquired belonging to the petitioner and the Land Acquisition Officer, issued a notice to the petitioner on 6-2-2002, mentioning that if the petitioner had any objection, he should file the same. On 20-2-2002, it was informed to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Officer that the land is required for public purpose and the possession is to be taken. Hence, the petitioner was directed to take compensation of Rs. 15,97,710/- and the petitioner received the cheque and thereafter requested to pay the balance amount. Another notice issued to the petitioner by the tchsildar Barwani on 6-5-2002 mentioning that the possession of the land to be delivered to the respondents on 15-5-2002. However, another notice was issued to the petitioner by the Tehsildar Barwani on 11-5-2002 mentioning that as per the award dated 2-5-2002, the land of the petitioner including other two persons, which was sought to be acquired was excluded from acquisition by the award passed on 2-5-2002. Hence, he was directed to cancel the land acquisition proceedings and the notice dated 6-5-2002. Against this notice, the petitioner filed the petition before this Court.

(2.) THE petition of the petitioner was registered as W. P. No. 839/02. It was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide order dated 25th Sept. , 2002. Against the said order, the petitioner filed LPA before this Court, which was registered as LPA No. 8/03 and vide order dated 9-7-2003, the above LPA was disposed of, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the above matter and the case was remanded back for a decision on merits. That is why, this petition has come up for hearing.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted in the petition that because no proceedings under S. 48 (1) of the Act has been taken by the respondents. Hence, the withdrawal of the land of the petitioner from the acquisition is arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act. It has further been submitted that once the possession has been taken and interim compensation has been paid to the petitioner, the land can not be withdrawn from the acquisition and the respondent No. 2 has no authority to delete the petitioner's land from the acquisition proceedings. He was required to determine the compensation only.