BAJRANGA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - As in all the aforesaid writ petitions, challenge has been made by the petitioners to the notification dated 04.07.2008 issued by the respondents that they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The said notification has been issued under Sec. 4(1) and 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no dispute about the fact that no further notification under the Land Acquisition Act other than Sec. 4 has been issued in the impugned proceedings so far. Confronted with the query of the Court that in view the stage of acquisition proceedings where notification under Sec. 4 only has been issued, filing of the writ petition at this stage is premature because the Government is yet to take decision for acquiring the land in question, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned proceedings can be challenged even at this stage. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the cases of Munshi Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 337 and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 168 . He has also referred to the case of Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 306 .

(3.) So far as the case of Munshi Singh (supra) and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (supra) are concerned, a bare perusal of the judgments passed by the Honourable Apex Court reveals that a challenge to the acquisition proceeding in those cases was made by the petitioner at a stage subsequent to the issuance of such notification under Sec. 4 i.e. after issuance of notification under Sec. 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and other subsequent notifications. In the case of Munshi Singh, the notification under Sec. 4 was issued on 16.07.1960 and notification under Sec. 6 and 17 was issued on 23.12.1961. Similarly in the case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (supra), notification under Sec. 4(1) was issued on 12.04.1984 and notification under Sec. 6(1) was issued on 16.04.1984. Likewise, perusal of the judgment in the case of Omprakash Sharma (supra) reveals that in para one, the Honourable Apex Court had reproduced the notification which itself reveals that notification under Sec. 17 had already been issued.