KARI KHUNTIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five petitioners have jointly filed this application under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') notification u/s. 4(1) of the Act wherefor is dated 5-7-1978 published in the Orissa Gazette on 27-7-1978. The petitioners contend that acquisition proceedings in regard to the lands given in Schs. A, A-1 and A-2 of the writ application are vitiated on account of :-

(2.) The S.4(1) Notification in Annexure-1 indicated that the lands described below were intended to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for locating the private bus stand and taxi stand at Badambadi :- Khata No. Plot No. Total area Acquisition area 1234 793 1486 0.773 dec. 0.295 dec. 521 1487 0.897 dec. 0.688 dec. 521 1488 0.082 dec. 0.082 dec. 270 1489 0.078 dec. 0.076 dec. 521 1490 0.391 dec. 0.265 dec. Total ...... Ac. 1.406 dec. As averred in paragraph 2 of the writ application, 'A' schedule land belongs to the Petitioner No.1 while the land under Sch.A-1 belongs to the petitioners 2 and 3 together and similarly the land under Schedule A-2 belongs to the petitioners 4 and 5. Acquisition of plots Nos.1488 and 1489 is in entirety and part acquisition is in respect of the remaining 3 plots. The petitioners are not interested in plot No.1486. Petitioners 2 and 3 are interested in a little more than 166 decimals out of the total acquired area of Ac.0.688 decimals appertaining to plot No.1487 while petitioners 4 and 5 are interested in Ac.0.126 decimals of plot No.1487. Petitioners 4 and 5 appear to be interested in portions of plots Nos.1488 and 1489, wrongly shown as plot No.1439, in Schedule A-2 of the writ application.

(3.) Two counter-affidavits have been filed, one by opposite parties 1, 2, 3 and 5 and the other by opposite party No.4. The joint counter-affidavit supports the acquisition and has disputed the several contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. In the counter affidavit of the Executive Officer while the stand taken by the other opposite parties has been generally supported with reference to the reservation of the area for residential purpose no challenge has been advanced.