Sheema Ali Khan, J.:— The petitioner has made a prayer that the lands which have been acquired under the emergent provisions of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, should be released in her favour as they are lying unutilized and vacant.
2. The ceiling proceeding was initiated some in 1986-87 lapsed. The same was restarted in 2004. Finally notice was issued under section 4 of the Act. The lands acquired were to be utilized for building offices and residential accommodation for officers of the State. Subsequently most of the lands have been utilized for providing residential quarters for the Collector, D.D.C, Superintendent Of Police and other officers. The residential quarters have been constructed or are under construction. The petitioner has been paid 80% of the compensation amount and 20% is yet to be paid to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact some of the lands are vacant which indicates that there was no need for the State to issue a notification under section 17 of the Act. Undoubtedly the State is at fault, inasmuch, as there has been a delay in concluding the land acquisition proceedings. However, it is too late in the day to agitate this aspect of the matter.
4. Counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure 4 which is an order of this court allowing the petitioners of that case to take full control of the lands that were subject matter of an acquisition proceeding. However, this court notices that the order was passed in view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in which it has been stated that although publication under section 4 was issued in the district gazette, but declaration under section 6 could not be published within one year. Hence, a fresh notification under section 4 was again issued and published in the district gazette since the acquisition of the lands in question was necessary for District Administration.
5. The distinction between the order referred to by the petitioner is that in that case the State had not taken possession of the lands which were under acquisition. In the present case not only has the State taken possession of the lands in question, but has also paid 80% of the compensation amount to the petitioner. Counsel for the State submits that the rest 20% of the compensation amount along with interest will be paid to the petitioner on the date on which she appears before the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner would be entitled to raise the issue of a higher interest considering the fact that the lands were acquired in 1988 and the petitioner is likely to be paid rest 20% amount in 2010. The petitioner will also be entitled to raise objection with respect to value of the lands.
6. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.