VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE put forth in these bunch of petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is the acquisition of lands belonging to the respective petitioners. The lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for the purpose of establishing mega Cement Plant by M/s. Bhilai J.P. Cement Ltd. The lands acquired are situated in village Sakariya and Birouhali of Tahsil Raghurajnagar and has been subjected to acquisition by virtue of notification under section 4(1) dated 9.7.2008. Since the issue involves in these petitions being similar they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly are that, for establishing a Mega Cement Plant at village Birouhali with the production capacity 2.2 million tones of cement per year land admeasuring 235.59 acres was required. The respondent Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd. purchased about 157.96 acres of land in village Birhouli and Sakariya from 64 individual land owners by registered sale -deeds executed on different dates between 7.8.2007 to 7.3.2008 and since the remaining land, i.e., about 72.77 acres could not be purchased because of unwillingness of the respective owners, therefore, the State Government at the instance of the Company, resorted to acquire the same under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notifications were issued under section 4(1) and 6 of the Act of 1894 and 28 persons from whom the land was sought to be acquired were served with a notice under section 9 of the Act of 1894. It is at this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment of the entire acquisition proceedings including the quashment of notification under section 4(1) and 6 of the Act of 1894.

(3.) THE respondents on their turn, while refuting the allegation that, the land is not acquired for the purpose likely to prove useful to the public; contends that the procedure laid down in Part VII of the Act of 1894 and rule 4 of the Rules of 1963 was strictly adhered to, before resorting to proceed under sections 4 and 6 of the Act.