Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
R.P.No.1528/2018
(Jeevan Singh Vs. Union of India)
R.P.No.1537/2018
(Narendra Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others)
R.P.No.1540/2018
(Alka Dubey Vs. Union of India & Others)
R.P.No.1538/2018
Charan Singh (Decd.) Vs. Union of India
INDORE, Dated : 21.06.2019
Shri A.K. Chitle, learned senior counsel with Shri
Manoj Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Anita Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2.
Heard on the question of admission.
ORDER
Per Vivek Rusia. J:
All the review petitions involves same facts and grounds, hence, all are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from R.P.No.1528/2018.
The petitioner has filed the present Review Petition seeking review/recalling of Order dated 27.09.2018 passed in WP 16894/2018 whereby the writ petition is dismissed.
Facts of the case are as under:
The notification under section 3-A(1) of the National Highway Act 1956 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1956") was published in the Official Gazette of Government of India and also in the local newspaper for acquisition of large are of land for construction of four lane National Highway. The petitioner being owner of the land bearing survey No. 301/2 (0.03 hectare), situated in Village Birbodh (Kalma), Tehsil Tongkhurd, District Dewas filed an objection to the notification issued under Section 3A(1).
Thereafter the Government issued a subsequent notification dated 28.05.2012 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3-D(2) of the Act of 1956.
The petitioner and three others filed four writ petitions before this court challenging the notification dated 07.11.2011 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and notification/declaration dated 28.05.2012. By common order dated 30.08.2012 all the writ petitions were partly allowed by quashing the notification dated 28.05.2012 and the order passed by SDO(R)/Land Acquisition Officer with the direction to pass the speaking order afresh after following the procedure prescribed under section 3-C of the Act of 1956.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders Government of Union of India & NHAI filed the writ appeals before the Division Bench. Vide order dated 19.10.2012, all the writ appeals were disposed of by modifying the order passed by the writ Court to the extent that the notification dated 28.05.2012 which has been quashed shall be treated as notification under Section 3-D of the Act of 1956. The Division Bench has also modified the order of Single Judge by confining it only in respect of the writ petitioners and the notification in respect of the other land owner shall remain intact and shall not be governed by disposal of the writ petition & writ appeal.
In compliance of the aforesaid order the SDO (R) and Land Acquisition Officer, Dewas issued a notice dated 23.03.2017 to all the petitioners for giving them opportunity of hearing on 21.04.2017. According to the petitioners, they appeared before the SDO and submitted same objections which were submitted on 26.09.2011 and 08.06.2012.
After hearing the petitioners, the SDO has passed order dated 13.03.2018 rejecting all the objections. The petitioners have been given opportunity to invoke the provisions of Section 3-G before the Arbitrator for enhancement of the compensation if they feel unsatisfied with the awarded amount of compensation.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the W.P.No.16894/2018. The Division Bench by order dated 27.09.2018 has dismissed the writ petition. Now, the petitioner has filed review petition on the ground that the notification issued under Section 3-D dated 28.05.2012 has been quashed by the writ Court vide order dated 30.08.2012 and thereafter, the respondents have not issued any fresh notification for acquiring the land of the petitioner. In absence of any notification under Section 3- D of the Act, the land of the petitioner cannot be used for construction of National Highway road. The writ petition has also prayed that the notification issued on 25.07.2011 is also liable to be quashed.
Shri A.K. Chitle, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the writ Court has quashed the notification issued under Section 3-D in the year 2012 and thereafter, an award had been passed in the year 2013 without complying the directions issued by the writ Court, hence, the said award is illegal and thereafter, now the respondents have again decided the objections vide order dated 13.03.2019 which cannot be termed as an award passed under the Act of 1956 specially when there is no notification under Section 3-C of the Land Acquisition Act, hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is liable to be reviewed.
Per contra, Mrs. Anita Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that other land owners hqave filed the Writ Petition No.5693/2014 before this Court challenging the notification dated 07.11.2011 and 28.05.2012 but vide order dated 24.11.2016 said the writ petitions have been dismissed by the writ Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
That the writ petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition NO.6569/2012 challenging the notification dated 07.11.2011, order of SDO and declaration dated 28.05.2012 issued under Section 3-D of the Land Acquisition Act. Vide order dated 30.08.2012, the writ Court only quashed the notification dated 28.05.2012 and the award passed by the SDO. The writ Court has declined to quash the notification issued under Section 3-A(1) dated 07.11.2011 & entire land acquisition proceedings.
The Union of India and NHAI filed a Writ Appeal No.534/2012 in which vide order dated 19.10.2012, the order of writ Court has been confined only in respect of four writ petitioner but the notification dated 28.05.2012 has been remained entact for other land owners. In view of the above, in pursuant to notification dated 07.11.2011 and order dated 28.05.2011, the NHAI has continued with the acquisition proceedings and construction of the four lane road over the land of other land owners. By order of writ Court dated 30.08.2012 and order of the Division Bench dated 19.10.2012, all the petitioners were given only an opportunity of hearing by the SDO. The present petitioner submitted same objections which were submitted earlier in the year 2011 & 2012.
The learned SDO (R) and Land Acquisition Officer has duly considered objections and passed the final order dated 13.03.2018. Now, the present petitioner has filed writ petition challenging the notification dated 07.11.2011 again which is not permissible because in earlier writ petitions, the same notification was challenged & the writ Court has declined to quash it. The writ Court and the writ appellate Court had only granted liberty to the petitioner to submit objection and directed the SDO to decide these objections. There cannot be issue in respect of quashment of entire proceedings of the land acquisition officer in the subsequent writ petition. In compliance of the order passed by the writ Court, the petitioner submitted his objection and participated in the proceedings before the SDO/Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, now he cannot take a somersault and submit that notification dated 28.05.2012 had been quashed and there is no fresh notification under Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act. Needless to say that this Court had never quashed the entire land acquisition proceedings & notification dated 07.11.2011, only the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit an objection. The issue in respect of challenge of Land Acquisition proceedings had already attained finality in earlier round of litigation.
Hence, no case for review of the order dated 27.09.2018 is made out. All the review petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Let one copy of this order be placed in the record of all the review petitions.
(S.C. SHARMA) (VIVEK RUSIA)
Judge Judge
jasleen
Digitally signed by Jasleen
Singh Saluja
Date: 2019.06.25 10:30:16
+05'30'