ISARUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is aggrieved by acquisition of his land under the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) THE view which I am inclined to take in this writ petition makes it unnecessary to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that a small piece of land of the petitioner as also lands of other persons were acquired for the construction of rope-way of respondent No. 5 M/s. Mysore Cement Limited. It is not in controversy that possession of the land of the petitioner as also other persons has been taken and the rope-way of the Diamond Cement Company of respondent No. 5 has become operational since more than a decade. It is further not in controversy that a large number of persons are employed in the Company and in case the acquisition of the land of the petitioner under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act is held to be bad, the entire activity of the Cement Company shall be put to jeopardy and large number of persons shall be rendered jobless. In such a situation, whether it is fit case for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is the question which I shall endeavour to answer first.

(3.) MR. Ravindra Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when the land has been acquired for the Company i. e. respondent No. 5 such procedure as applicable for acquisition of land for the Company under the Land Acquisition Act ought to have been followed, which has not been done and hence entire acquisition has become illegal. Mr. Rajendra Menon, however, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 submits that in fact the land was acquired for public purpose and then handed over to respondent No. 5 and there is no illegality in the same.