RAM KISHOR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification no. 848(ii) dated 1.8.2007 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A. Case No. 2(Ka)/04-05 issued by the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Ranchi as the same was issued without jurisdiction.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without observing the process of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondents have issued notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act fixing compensation to be paid.

(3.) On the other hand, from the averment made in their counter affidavit and submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that against the notification dated 25.5.2005 issued under Section 5 of the Amended Rule 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.C. No. 5511 of 2005 praying for quashing the said notification. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2006 passed by a Bench of this Court refusing to interfere with the notification and observing that the contention of the petitioner that the acquisition of land is not for public purpose cannot be accepted and it is for setting up of generation plant by the Hindalco Industries. This Court also observed that it is needless to say that the persons, whose land shall be acquired, shall be entitled to compensation.