SK ANSAR ALLI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they are the owners of land measuring Ac.0.012 decimals in Plot No. 301, Khata No. 151. Mouza Jagannathpur, Tahsil Mahanga in the district of Cuttack and they have constructed a residential house on the said land. Land Acquisition Case No. 17 of 1997 was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for acquisition of the said land. The petitioners submitted their objection to the acquisition of the said land stating that they have constructed their residential house by incurring huge expenses, but the authorities did not pay any heed to the said objection. Thereafter notification under Sections 4 and 17 of the Act was issued on 4.5.1999 stating that the land measuring more or less Ac.2.23 decimals described in the schedule to the notification was urgently needed for construction of approach road to the High Level (for short, 'H.L.') bridge over the river Badagenguti and that the provisions of Section 5 A of the Act will not apply to the land. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the notification dated 4.5.1999 for acquisition of the said land.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No. 2 Land Acquisition Officer, Civil, Collectorate, Cuttack stating therein that the H.L. bridge over the river Badagenguti was constructed but could not be put to use by the public due to non construction of an approach road and the Executive Engineer, R and B Division, Kendrapara submitted a proposal to the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of Ac.2.23 decimals of land for construction of the approach road and notification under Section 4(1) with emergency Clause of Section 17 of the Act was issued by the Government of Orissa, Revenue Department, Bhubaneswar, on 20.3.1999 in respect of the aforesaid land dispensing with the provisions of Section 5 A of the Act. In the said counter affidavit, it is further stated that the objections of the petitioners to the acquisition of the land submitted to the Collector were not taken into consideration as the land was to be acquired for construction of approach road to H.L. bridge already constructed over the river Badagenguti on application of emergency provisions of Section 17 of the Act dispensing with the requirements of Section 5 A of the Act and the declaration in respect of the land under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.12.1999 and the petitioners shall be paid compensation after the award is made under Section 11 of the Act.

(3.) MR Debashis Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that although the proposal for acquisition of the land was initiated in 1997, the notification under Sections 4 and 17 of the Act was issued on 20.3.1999 and this pre notification delay cannot vitiate the invocation of the emergency provisions of Section 17 of the Act so as to dispense with the requirement of Section 5A of the Act. In support of his submission, he cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Pahwa, etc. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1721 and the decision of this Court in Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan v. The Land Acquisition Officer (Civil), Cuttack and Ors. 1990 (II) O.L.R. 584. He relied on the averments in the counter affidavit as well as the records produced before this Court to show that the notification invoking the emergency provisions of Section 17 of the Act was absolutely justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.