SK.ANSAR ALLI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were the owners of the land measuring Ac. 0.012 decimals in Plot No. 301, Khata No. 151, Mouza -Jagannathpur, Tahsil Mahanga in the district of Cuttack and they had constructed a residential house on the said land. Land Acquisition Case No. 17 of 1997 ws 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 their land was urgently needed for construction of approach road to the high level bridge over the river Badagenguti and that the provisions of Section 5 -A of the Act will not apply to the said land. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition O.J.C. No. 11756 of 2000 before this Court with a prayer to quash the said notification dated 4.5.1999 for acquisition of the said land. The Court entertained the writ petition and passed interim orders on 22.11.2000 in Misc. Case No. 11935 of 2000 directing that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the disputed land, but after hearing the parties at length dismissed the writ petition and vacated the said interim order by judgment dated 12.12.2003.

(2.) IN Review Petition No. 149 of 2003, the petitioners have prayed for review of the said judgment dated 12.12.2003 in O.J.C. No. 11756 of 2000. In Misc. Case No. 143 of 2003, the petitioners have prayed for stay of further proceeding pursuant to L.A. Case No. 17 of 1997 on the file of the Land Acquisition Officer, Cuttack and for appropriate orders restraining the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question till final disposal of the review petition. In Misc. Case No. 2 of 2004, the petitioners have stated that the houses on the land sought to be acquired have been demolished on 29th and 30th of December, 2003 and have prayed that the Collector, Cuttack and the State Government be directed to re -construct the petitioners houses and pay adequate compensation to the petitioners.

(3.) MR . Bijan Ray, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submitted that in Om Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1998 SC 2504, the Supreme Court found that the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act was published on 30th of March, 1991 whereas the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 7th of January, 1992 and the Supreme Court held that the fact that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued nine months after the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) was issued falsifies the claim of urgency of the acquisition of the land by the Government. Mr. Ray further submitted that in Union of India and others v. Praveen Gupta and others, AIR 1997 SC 170, the Supreme Court has further held that the decision regarding urgency is to be taken on subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government on the basis of material available on record. Mr. Ray submitted that these two decisions of the Supreme Court though relevant to the facts of this case were not placed before the Court when it heard the writ petition and as a result, the Court has come to an erroneous conclusion in the judgment dated 12.12.2003 in O.J.C. No. 11756 of 2000 that the notification of the State Government invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the requirements of Section 5 -A of the Act was valid.