MANNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), being the same, all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of finally at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsels forthe parties.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired by the State Government vide the notification dated 5.2.08 issued under Section 4 of the said Act, for the purpose of construction of road for the respondent No.3-JDA in relation to Special Economic Zone Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer having submitted the report after the inquiry under Section 5(A), the State Government issued the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 6.2.08. The said declaration was earlier challenged by the petitioners by filing the SBCWP No. 1997/09 and two others on the ground that the petitioners were not given the opportunity of hearing in the inquiry as comtemplated under Section 5(A) of the said Act. The said petitions came to be allowed by the High Court vide the common judgment dated 8.7.11 in which directions were given to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the objections of the petitioners filed by them under Section 5(A) of the said Act. It was further observed interalia that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further with the notification under Section 4 of the said Act, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in terms of Section 5(A) of the said Act in accordance with law. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter considered the objections of the petitioners and submitted the report to the State Government, which issued fresh declaration under Section 6 of the said Act on 9.7.12. The said declaration has again been challenged by the petitioners in the instant petition on the ground that the fresh declaration issued under Section 6 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein. The petition has been resisted by the respondent No.3 by filing the reply to which the petitioners have filed the rejoinder.

(3.) The bone of contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the second declaration issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the said Act being after the prescribed period of one year of the last publication of Section 4 notification, the same was bad in law in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in case of Padma Sundara Rao (dead) & ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2002 3 SCC 533.