MST HAJRA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 11th August, 2017 of the writ Court, passed in OWP No. 263/2016, on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned writ Court, while passing the impugned order, has erred in law, inasmuch as, the Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has stated that the appellant had the remedy available under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act other than the writ jurisdiction. This assertion is not based on the correct proposition and enunciation of law. The well settled law is that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are subject to judicial review and the view of the writ Court that no writ will lie against the acquisition proceedings is erroneous, and as a sequel thereto, the impugned judgement deserves to be set aside.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the question for the determination of the writ Court was whether the respondents, after entering into private negotiations with the appellant - writ petitioner to the effect that the remaining part of the land, (subject matter of the lis), will not be taken away and shall be utilized by the appellant - writ petitioner for herself and that she shall be at liberty to construct the shops thereon, could back out at a later stage on the face of such negotiations. The appellant contends that they had no jurisdiction to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings for they were estopped by and under the law. It is further stated that the award passed by the respondent No. 3 is invalid as it is not in consonance with the law and, therefore, violative of the principals of natural justice and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated that it was not within the domain and power of the respondents to issue the impugned notice of eviction on the basis of the impugned award after they had made it public and represented to the appellant that they do not require the land now and they had also acted upon the said decision and even referred the matter to the Commissioner Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department in the year 2007 itself, besides taking a similar stand before the Civil Court. Learned counsel further states that the respondents could not rely upon the award passed in the years 2004/2006, when, for almost a decade, they had maintained that they do not require the land and had neither taken the possession of the land nor paid any compensation to the appellant assessed a decade back and that too at the back of the appellant, thus, depriving her of the grant of due compensation at the prevailing market rate. It is further stated that the impugned award has become non est in the eyes of law as it has been rendered in fructuous with the passage of time and the respondents had no authority to implement the same in the year 2016, i.e. after a gap of a decade by now.

(3.) The appellant has further pleaded that the aforementioned pleas can not be agitated before the District Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned writ Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the issues preliminary in nature, without considering the aforesaid questions, which were also raised in the writ petition. The impugned judgement of the writ Court is, therefore, illegal and against law. It deserves to be set aside as it has caused great miscarriage of justice to the appellant.