It is second round of litigation assailing the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents.
The notification dt.20.01.1992 u/S.4(1) read with Sec.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by Appropriate Government came to be challenged by the present petitioners by filing their respective writ petitions and that came to be dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dt.02.09.1996 It appears from the record that all the writ petitioners preferred special appeals and all the special appeals other than preferred by Ram Charan came to be decided which includes the appeals preferred by the present petitioners, vide order dt.15.12.2005 ad infra:
“In view of the subsequent events narrated before us, we grant liberty to the appellants to make representations before the concerned authority in regard to their grievance. The concerned authority is directed to dispose of the representations after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants as expeditiously as possible. 15 days time is granted to the appellants to submit representations. Till the representations are decided, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in regard to the land in question.”
However, the appeal preferred by Ram Charan remained pending which the Division Bench decided vide judgment dt.25.04.2007 (RLR 2007 (2) Page 617). However, a finding came to be recorded in regard to notification dt.20.01.1992 holding that dispensing with the enquiry u/S.5A and invoking urgency clause in the facts and circumstances was not after due application of mind and accordingly the acquisition proceedings qua Ram Charan came to be quashed which is evident from the operative part of the judgment.
It will be relevant to record that the Division Bench was aware of this fact that against the judgment of the Single Bench dt.02.09.1996 11 special appeals in all came to be preferred and out of them 10 special appeals were decided by common order dt.15.12.2005 and the special appeal of Ram Charan was left and thus taking into consideration that fact the Division Bench confined the dispute raised in reference to Ram Charan alone and the notification to that extent came to be set aside.
Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench granting liberty to the respective petitioners of filing representation that came to be filed by the individual writ petitioners and that has been rejected by the State Government after passing speaking order dt.14.06.2006 and it will be relevant to record that only objection raised for consideration before the Government by filing representations by the individual petitioner was in regard to de-acquisition of the land which once stood acquired and vested free from all encumbrances. However, taking into consideration the submission made, it could not prevail upon the Government to de-acquire the land as prayed for by the writ petitioners and accordingly representations were rejected and that is the cause for filing the instant bunch of petitions.
Counsel for petitioners while making submissions has not assailed the finding which the State Government recorded in its order impugned dt.14.06.2006 while rejecting the representations but has tried to assail the notification of the Appropriate Government issued u/S.4(1) read with 17(4) of the Act dt.20.01.1992 which came to be examined in the case of Ram Charan vide judgment dt.25.04.2007, RLR 2007 (2) Page 617.
Counsel for petitioner submits that when the special appeals were preferred the validity of the notification dt.20.01.1992 was not examined and the appeals came to be decided granting liberty to make representations but that will not be construed as affirmance of the order of the learned Single Bench rejecting their writ petitions dt.02.09.1996 and once the finding has been recorded by the Division Bench in the case of Ram Charan, the present petitioners who also raised their grievance for examining the self same notification issued by the Appropriate Government u/S.4(1) read with 17(4) of the Act dt.20.01.1992 they too are entitled to the same parity qua Ram Charan and as such the notification deserves to be quashed.
Counsel for respondent on the other hand submits that once the notification dt.20.01.1992 came to be assailed by the present petitioners and their writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Bench vide judgment dt.02.09.1996 and on appeal being preferred the writ petitioners were granted liberty to raise objections at their own command after they sought liberty to make representation that certainly was confined to examine regarding the plea raised of de-acquisition of the proceedings and it is not open to examine the validity of the notification dt.20.01.1992 so far as present petitioners are concerned. Counsel further submits that Division Bench in the case of Ram Charan was in know of the facts that other special appeals have been decided by common order granting liberty prayed for to make representation thus while examining the validity of the notification dt.20.01.1992 confined to the case of Ram Charan and finding has been recorded qua him and only to that extent notification impugned has been set aside and no parity in these circumstances could be claimed by the present petitioners. It has also been informed to this Court that after issuance of the notification u/S.17(4) which was assailed in the bunch of petitions the Appropriate Government took physical possession on 05.02.1992 and it finally vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances and land has been developed thereafter and nature of the land has got changed in view of later developments which took place.
It is not in dispute that the notification dt.20.01.1992 came to be examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Charan, RLR 2007 (2) Page 617 and finding has been recorded that there was no application of mind of the Appropriate Government while issuing notification dt.20.01.1992 but that was only confined to the extent of Ram Charan alone and so far as present petitioners are concerned, they too preferred writ petitions along with Ram Charan and that came to be dismissed by common order dt.02.09.1996 but at the stage of appeal they only confined their submissions seeking liberty from this Court to make representation and once the Government took over possession and it was vested free from all encumbrances for its de-acquisition the plea which was raised has been examined by the State Government in details and by speaking order rejected their representations made vide order dt.14.06.2006
This Court has also gone through the order impugned in the instant bunch of petitions and does not find any infirmity so far as plea raised by the petitioners regarding de-acquisition of the proceedings is concerned. However, in the facts of the instant case the petitioners cannot be now permitted to question afresh after their petitions came to be dismissed vide judgment dt.02.09.1996 regarding the self same notification dt.20.01.1992 on the basis of the later judgment of the Division Bench of this Court of which reference has been made (supra).
Consequently, this Court does not find substance in the petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
Comments