Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Pratibha And 3 Ors. vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 3 ... on 20 January, 2016
1
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT: JABALPUR
BENCH AT INDORE
Before Single Bench: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S.R. Waghmare
W.P. No.4971/2013
Smt. Pratibha and others.
W.P. No.4709/2013
Vishala (M/s) D/o Narayanrao Telang and others.
W.P. No.4970/2013
Prakash Rangnekar and others.
W.P. No.5074/2013
Ulhas Gandhye S/o Vyanktesh and another.
W.P. No.5230/2013
Smt. Sharda Chaturvedi
w/o Late Shri Shivprasanna Chaturvedi
W.P. No. 5608/2013
Ashish Kumar Sharma and another
W.P.No.5781/2013
Shri Anant s/o Late Balakrishna Tikekar and others.
.... Petitioners.
Vs.
1.State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through the Collector, District Ujjain,
2
2. The Competent Land Acquisition
Authority, the Collector Acting as under
Secretary, Revenue Department,
Collectorate, Ujjain.
3. The Municipal Corporation Ujjain,
(Council-in Session)
Through the Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Ujjain.
.....Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit S. Agrawal, Shri Nitin Phadke, Shri
Vivek Phadke and Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned Counsel
for the petitioners.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation, Ujjain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on this 20th day of January, 2016) These petitions are dealt with a common order since they are arising out of a common question and all the petitioners are aggrieved by the notification dated 01.03.2013 issued by the State Government in exercise powers under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Annexure P/9).
302. Petitioners have prayed for relief and quashment of Annexure P/8, which is the proposal sent by the Collector on 21.02.2013 to the Commissioner respondent No.2 for invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and also quashment of notification dated 07.02.2013 (Annexure P/9) invoking Section 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and by amendment prayed for quashment of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.04.2015 in proceedings in individual case.
03. Briefly the facts of the case as projected by the Counsel for the petitioners are that; the petitioners, are all residents of Mahakal Chowk, Ujjain and the property undoubtedly has been purchased by their forefathers and devolved as legal representatives on the present residents. Taking only the case of Smt. Pratibha and others as a demonstration case, it was stated that the dwelling house was constructed on the plot in question after due sanction from the Municipal Committee dated 25.06.1958 (Annexure P/2) and since then the Shreepad Parchure family is living in the said house and the house also being appropriately partitioned to legal representatives and each owned their distinct shares; at present, the legal representatives are owner of the suit houses as per record of Municipal Corporation for fiscal purposes and paying property tax etc. 4 However the Corporation in its meeting dated 24.11.2011, proposed acquisition of 11 houses situated in front of Mahakal temple and the proposal was sanctioned by Commissioner and detailed project report was prepared on 24.09.2012. Thereafter, on 28.01.2013 a proposal was sent by Municipal Corporation to Collector Ujjain stating that acquisition of land is required in front of the Mahakal Temple, Ujjain with regard to 11 houses (residential and non-residential) as fully detailed in the 7 petitions filed before this Court. The proposal was then forwarded to L.A.O. on 06.02.2013. The S.D.O. noted the same on the note- sheet dated 07.02.2013 and as proposed 11 buildings/houses admeasuring 1260.76 sq. mtrs (419.26 sq. mtrs. Commercial and 841.51 sq. mtrs. residential) were required. The proposal was then forwarded to the State Government for seeking permission for invocation clause of urgency under Section 17(1) & 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act sanctioned by ex- officio secretary, and, thereafter, the notification dated 07.02.2013 was published in the official gazette dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure P/9) u/S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, enquiry u/S.5-A was dispensed with. Notice dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P/10) sent by the respondent No.4/Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioners asking them to submit their objections and hence, the present petitions.
504. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the facts that the petitioners are living their houses for more than 70 years peacefully and have a constitutional right guaranteed by Article 300-A of Constitution of India to occupy and enjoy the said property; and that since the enquiry was already dispensed with; proper opportunity of hearing should be granted to the petitioners, which is not being done. Counsel vehemently urged that there was total non- application of mind regarding the forming an opinion and arriving at the decision for invoking the urgency clause. The public purpose which is sine-qua-non for exercise of powers u/S.17(1) and 17(4) of the Act have been completely disregarded. The public purpose according to the Counsel as being stated by respondent is de hors Section 3 (f) of the Act and cannot be stretched in the public purpose, moreover the delay in issuing the notification has not been satisfactorily explained. Besides the urgency has lost its efficacy and, therefore, the impugned notification is bad in law. Moreover the statutory period and condition of seeking sanction have not been fulfilled. Besides placing reliance in the matter of MPHB v/s. Mohd, Shafi (1992) 2 SCC 168 and Omprakash v/s. MPAKVN (2005) 10 SCC 306, Counsel submitted that it was necessary to ascertain the intention of Government and the notification issued 6 u/S.4 of Land Acquisition Act be quashed. Besides, failure by u/S.17 (4) dispensation of enquiry u/S.5-A in the present case is contrary to the provisions of law. He also relied in the matter of Radheshyam v/s. State of U.P. (2011) 5 SCC 553, to state that the notice as urged was also contrary to the notification Annexure P/9 itself; since the enquiry excluded under Section 5-A and proceedings are, therefore, void ab-initio. Besides petitioners cannot be dis-possessed according to the Counsel in such an arbitrary manner contrary to provisions of Act and the Article 300-A as also Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel prayed that the above mentioned relief be granted to the petitioners and the impugned notification be quashed. Counsel for the petitioners has also raised a plea that the acquisition is based on political motivation and the land was being acquired to give undue advantage to Bharat Mata Mandir Trust and RSS. Counsel also relied in the matters of Narayan Govind Gavate and others v/ s. State of Maharashtra and others (1977) 1 SCC 133, Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v/s. M. Prabhakar and others (2011) 5 SCC 607, Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by LRS. v/s. Government of NCT of Delhi and others (2012) 2 SCC 327, Prabhawati and others v/s. State of Bihar and others (2014) 13 SCC 721 and Mohinder Singh Gill and another v/s.
7The Chief Election Commissioner and others AIR 1978 SC 851 to bolster his submissions.
05. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently urged the fact that the petitions are not maintainable since the award as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued and if at all the petitioners are dissatisfied with the compensation then they have an alternative remedy of filing appeal for enhancement of compensation even as per the new Land Acquisition Act of 2013.
06. Counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently urged the fact that since the notification under Section 4 r/w. S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 17.02.2013 followed by the notification under Section 6 that the Government was pleased to declare that the land was needed for public purpose and urgency clause was also invoked under Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act to take possession of the land then under the circumstances these petitions are not justiciable.
07. Counsel submitted by the impugned notification that the petitioners are challenging the invocation of public purpose and allegations regarding giving undue advantage to the Bharat Mata Mandir Trust and the RSS have wrongly been made by the petitioners and merely making bald 8 assertions and allegations would not satisfy the challenge to the said notification. Counsel submitted that the houses belonging to the petitioners are very old and a wide road in front of Mahakal premises, is required to meet exigency of the Simhastha Mela, which is scheduled in the month of April, 2016. Despite which the petitioners have made false allegations of political motivation. And since the houses are situated right in front of Mahakal Mandir they fall within the periphery (boundary) of the Mahakal Mandir. And considering the huge rush of the Simhastha Mela and managing lakhs of the pilgrims who shall visit, the State Government with a purpose of avoiding any untoward accident; sought to acquire the houses for widening the road and facilitate the adequate crowd with proper management for congestion-free movement of pilgrims in and out of the Mahakal Mandir. So also whenever the Palki is taken out during Sawan, Bhado and Kartik Months (as per Hindu Calender Months), there is huge procession of pilgrims which creates congestion. Similarly the Akhadas are go for Sahi Snanas which also causes congestion of thousands of people in the procession and, therefore, appropriately notification under Section 4 r/w. S. 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act have been issued. Besides acquisition proceedings take long time, therefore, only extremely essential land is being acquired. It 9 is unfortunate that the houses are situated right in front of Mahakal Mandir but looking to the extreme urgency and necessity; acquisition proceedings in the interest of public at large have been taken. In fact Counsel for the respondent/State vehemently urged that the influx of pilgrims shall be started from January 2016 and the petitions be dismissed.
08. Counsel submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Ujjain has given sanctioned order dated 21.02.2013 yet due to the pendency of the present petitions, the acquisition of the said land could not be completed. Counsel submitted that the urgency clause has rightly been invoked. There is no vigorous mistake to the detailed specifications of the houses and surrounding land has been measured exactly and duly demonstrated by the notification. The objections of each petitioners have been dealt with each of the petitions, besides the compensation has been calculated as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 at Rs.16,25,12,285.00. Besides petitioners are also fighting inter se, and claiming the title over the area in dispute. Similarly if at all the petitioners are aggrieved they can challenge this award for claiming higher compensation as per the provisions of the New Act of 2013. Besides survey Annexure R/5 clearly indicates that the land is required in the present acquisition proceedings.
10There is no political malicious action involved and it would not be a truthful picture to project the urgency in such a fashion, although undoubtedly the entire proceedings have been initiated for the benefit of the general public and the impending Simhastha celebration.
09. Counsel also has refuted the fact that the invocation of the urgency clause was bad in law. The special satisfaction of the appropriate Authority/State Government has been sought before the notification was issued and the State Government was satisfied with the same and hence, it cannot be said that there was a delay in invoking the urgency clause. Besides Counsel urged that all allegations raised by petitioners are ill conceived and do not require consideration; primarily because the award has been passed as per New Land Acquisition Act of 2013 and more than adequate compensation as per market value is being awarded to the petitioners. So also Counsel urged that the fact that the alternative remedy is provided under the act and the award has already been passed on 24.04.2015 (Annexure R/1). Counsel prayed that the petitions are without merit and the same be dismissed.
10. Whereas Counsel for the respondent No.3/ Municipal Corporation, Ujjain has vehemently urged the facts that Shri Mahakal Temple is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas and people 11 come from all over the country as well as other nations descend on Ujjain at the time of Simhastha, there are crores of people visiting Ujjain in the month of April and May 2016 and hence, the report regarding 11 houses situated exactly opposed Mahakal Temple was proposed and detailed report for development was prepared by the Corporation vide Annexure R/1 stating that the city of Ujjain has developed and there was Nanakheda Bus Stand, Birla Hospital and Apolo Hospital and it was proposed to join the temple vide Sanwer Marg as well as the area in Hariphatak Mahakal Marg was also under construction. Stating that the entire area of 1260.76 sq.mtr occupied by present 11 houses was of utmost importance for the approch road to the Mahakal temple. Besides Cousnel urged that the Muncipal Corporation and State being aware of the market value of the land decided to pay Rs.16,25,12,285.00 (sixteen crore twenty five lakh twelve thousand two hundred eight five only) for the project and it was decided to construct the drainage; concrete road; boundary wall, electrification and gate etc. as proposed vide Annexure R-1. Counsel submitted that the matter was now "res integra" and no longer open for considaration; since the award has been passed and the writ petitions would not be maintainable; if at all the petitioners are dissatisfied, they have alternative remedy of an appeal for enhancement 12 of compensation only even under the provisions of new Act 2013. Counsel prayed that petitions were without merit and the same be dismissed as such.
11. Counsel for all the respondents have relied on following authorities i.e. Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1997) 1 SCC 134 to state that the Court should be slow in granting stay/injuction and when public interest was involved and necessity of rapid acquisition of land was required for creating basic infrastructure facilities for development they should be kept in mind and quashing of acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. If finally acquisition is found vitiated the person interested can be awarded damages when there is conflict of interest between the private persons and public interest both can coalesce in certain situation and such as acquisition of land for public purpose has to be considered. The High Court must balance the competing interest, however power was discretionary. And in Siyaram and others vs. State of MP and others [1999(2) M.P.L.J] pg. 714 the Court had held that the Court have to give way to the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising power under Artice 226 of Constitution of India. Similarly in the matter of Pratibha Nemaand others vs. State of M.P. and others (2003) 10 SCC 626 the Court held that the appellants have not suffered any prejudice or 13 handicap on account of the alleged vagueness, it should result in prejudice to the appellants if the exact purpose of acquisition is made known. The notification should not be set aside only on the ground of vagueness.
12. Finally Counsel for the respondents have also submitted that Courts should exercise judicial restraint in deciding what is and what is not functioning and invaliding legislation on the basis on unreasonable allegations invoking malafides should not be considered, merely because benefit would accrue to few individual parties. Counsel submitted that public purpose has been define in Section 3(f) of Land Acquisition Act and includes development and infrastructure of town and road planning and the present petitions the road is widely needed. Hence, Counsel prayed that the petitions are without merit and same be dismissed.
13. On considering the above submissions, I find the question that requires for adjudication is whether proceeding regarding the land in question in the present cases have been in accordance with the provisions of law. The question especially devolves on the invocation of the "urgency clause"
and the "public purpose" involved.
Taking up the first part of the question regarding the urgency, I find that it is thus essential to note for work of acquisition of the 11 houses situated in front of the Mahakal Mandir was 14 considered in the meeting of Municipal Corporation dated 24.11.2011 and sanctioned by the Commissioner. Thereafter, the proposal was sent by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vide Letter No.f'k-fo-/2013/16 dated 28.01.2013 indicating that for the precincts of Shri Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain i-g-u- 38 dLck Ujjain, land admeasuring 1260.76 out of which 11 houses were situated on the private land bearing Rakba No.419.26 sq.mtr. and commercial land at 841.5 sq.mtr. and the land was required to be acquired and the urgency clause was to be invoked. The Collector, Ujjain on 07.02.2013 invoked the urgency clause vide Letter No./Hkwfe laiknu/2013/887 under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act and sent for the publication in the M.P. State gazette part I and was duly notified on 01.03.2013 at Pg. No.677 and displayed by S.D.O., Ujjain in the office of Tehsildar as well as Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. The public notification No.1714 dated 02.04.2013 was also supplied to all the affected parties.
Earlier the sanction for the urgency was issued vide Letter No.888/Hkw-&vtZu/2013 dated 08.02.2013 by Commissioner, the Presiding Secretory and the M.P. State Revenue Department, Ujjain, region Ujjain, who granted the consent on 21.02.2013 under Section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, as already stated above, the 15 proceedings under Section 5 of the Act were not called for and the notification u/S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act were called for vide Letter No.Hkwfe laiknu/2013/2594 dated 12.04.2013 and published in the gazette dated 03.05.2013 at Pg. No.1537. The notification was also published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar under Section 6 of the Act on 26.04.2013 and displayed in the office of the S.D.O., Ujjain, Teshsildar, Ujjain and the office of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. The particular of the lands were also given in detail in the said notification. The name of the properties owners were also deemed published along with details of their houses proceedings under Section 9 (1)(2) and 9 (3) were also taken on 24.05.2013 vide Public Notice No.06/v&82/2012-13/2661 and also served on the parties concerned and the receipts obtained.
Consequently Section 9 (4) objections were received and decided the value of the land was fixed according to the guideline of respondent/State and hence, sum of Rs.40,000/- per sq.mtr. for the residential accommodation and Rs.80,000/- per sq/mtr. for commercial accommodation were decided. However 7 Writ Petitions have been filed and hence the land regarding 11 petitioners have not been acquired and the award has also been passed on 24.04.2015 (Annexure P/1) and hence in the circumstances the 16 objections have been raised by Counsel for the petitioners that the proposal was sent by Municipal Corporation, Ujjain only on 28.01.2013 and when the Municipal Corporation very well knew that the impending Simhastha to be held in the month of April, 2016.
14. On perusal the letter dated 28.01.2013 sent by Commissioner/Municipal Corporation, Ujjain to the Collector, Ujjain, it appears that in the meeting of the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain dated 24.11.2011 the Samiti had been constituted, to consider the requirement of Simhastha 2016 and action was taken by the Municipal Corporation under Section 300-A. but only on legal advise it was decided that to acquire the present disputed land belonging to the petitioners by invoking provision of Land Acquisition Act. However, the detailed project report was made available only after a period of 2 years (i.e. from 24.11.2011 to 28.01.2013) and Counsel for the petitioners has very aptly raised doubt regarding the urgency and the seriousness of the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioners.
15. Considering the ratio laid down in the matter of Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by LRS. v/ s. Government of NCT of Delhi and others (2012) 2 SCC 327, I find that the case is almost identical with the present cases and the Apex Court held thus:
17"28. What needs to be emphasized is that although in exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State can acquire the private property for public purpose, it must be remembered that compulsory acquisition of the property belonging to a private individual is a serious matter and has grave repercussions on his Constitutional right of not being deprived of his property without the sanction of law
- Article 300A and the legal rights.
Therefore, the State must exercise this power with great care and circumspection. At times, compulsory acquisition of land is likely to make the owner landless. The degree of care required to be taken by the State is greater when the power of compulsory acquisition of private land is exercised by invoking the provisions like the one contained in Section 17 of the Act because that results in depriving the owner of his property without being afforded an opportunity of hearing."
And further "36. It needs no emphasis that majority of the projects undertaken by the State and its agencies / instrumentalities, the implementation of which requires public money, are meant to benefit the people at large or substantially large segment of the society. If what the High Court has observed is treated as a correct statement of law, then in all such cases the acquiring authority will be justified in invoking Section 17 of the Act and dispense with the inquiry contemplated under Section 5-A, which would necessarily result in depriving the owner of his property without any opportunity to raise legitimate objection. However, as has been repeatedly held by this Court, the invoking of the urgency provisions can be justified only if there exists real emergency which cannot brook delay of even few weeks or months. In other words, the urgency provisions can be invoked only if even small delay of few weeks or months may frustrate the public purpose 18 for which the land is sought to be acquired. Nobody can contest that the purpose for which the appellants' land and land belonging to others was sought to be acquired was a public purpose but it is one thing to say that the State and its instrumentality wants to execute a project of public importance without loss of time and it is an altogether different thing to say that for execution of such project, private individuals should be deprived of their property without even being heard. "
16. Similarly in the matter of Narayan Govind Gavate and others v/s. State of Maharashtra and others, the Apex Court had held that although the onus is on the petitioners to prove that the urgency clause has not been properly invoked; official authority must also satisfy the Court that the power conferred has been exercised properly and not for an extraneous or irrelevant purpose and that there is no collateral object involved. Whereas if the petitioners are able to indicate that the facts and circumstances indicated failure of the State to discharge its burden as proved by the petitioners; then the urgency clause can definitely be open to judicial scrutiny.
17. In the present case, the notification has also been attacked on the ground of vagueness stating that neither the notification nor the letter by Commissioner indicated its specific purpose, which lands were required to notification lacking in material particular. It is, therefore, crucial to 19 consider that enquiry u/S.5-A has been dispensed with due to invocation of urgency clause u/S.17 of the Act; then the valuable opportunity objecting to the notification has been deprived and in this light the notification has to be scrutinized closely. I find that doubt about the notification due to its vaguenessm have also been raised. Counsel stated that the notification had to be struck down because it was vague since neither description of the lands i.e. survey number or khasra number had been given nor names of landowners whose lands were sought to be acquired given. The Apex Court had held in Omprakash Sharma (supra) that the notification was vague hence vitiated and cannot be sustained. Counsel submitted that in the present case also the property has not been properly described.
The other objections which require gone into are regarding the 'public purpose'. I find that the public purpose in the present case is very laconic and does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 4 for public purpose; in coloum No.6. of the notification it has only been mentioned that the 11 houses are required for acquisition since they are situated in front of Shri Mahakal Mandir, Ujjain. There is no whisper about the purpose and whereas the earlier part of the notification deals with acquisition of land at Badnagar and Sundarabad-Runija- Khachrod Marg Nirman avam Runija-Savrunda 20 Sadak Nirman (Annexure P/9). The notification also says that the proceedings u/S.5(A) of the Act are dispensed with; then I find that the notification should have at least mentioned the public purpose for which the land of the present petitioners was required by the respondent/State. The Supreme Court in the matter of Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRs. and others v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2011) 5 SCC 553, categorically held that since the power of the State to acquire land was vis-a-vis the right of a citizen to his property then the legal provisions must be strictly adhered. In absence of any indication regarding the intention of State Government to acquire the said land would not justify the notification under Section.17(1) of the Act. The long time gap in between the proposal and the land acquisition also raised doubt. I find that the Apex Court in this regard has aptly held in the matter of Radhy Shyam (supra), the Court held thus:
"77. From the analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and interpretation thereof by its Court in different cases, the following principles can be culled out:
(i) Eminent domain is a right inherent in every sovereign to take and appropriate property belonging to citizens for public use. To put it differently, the sovereign is entitled to reassert its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State including private property without its owner's consent provided that such assertion is on account of public exigency and for public good.21
(ii) The legislations which provide for compulsory acquisition of private property by the State fall in the category of expropriatory legislation and such legislation must be construed strictly. And
(iv) The property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities without complying with the mandate of Section 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be does not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions becuase the same have the effect of depriving the owner of his right to proverty without being heard. Only in a case of real urgency, the State can invoke the urgency provisions and dispense with the requirement of hearing the landowner or other interested persons."
18. In conclusion, I find that the entire controvery revolves around the question whether the State has rightly invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act and dispensed with enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. The onus would be heavy on the State to indicate that it has discharged its function as a sovereign function, besides, public purpose has also to be considered in the light of the fact whether the land to be acquired was essential for the public purpose. I find that although the Corporation has deliberated the question of present disputed land from 24.11.2011, two years delay has occasioned in initiating the proceedings. The sanction by the Collector Ujjain only on 28.11.2013 by itself does not justify invoking of the urgency clause especially in the light of the fact that the enquiry under 22 Section 5 has also been dispensed with. Moreover the award by the Land Acquisition Officer has already been passed on 24.04.2015 has to be considered. Undoubtedly, the Simhastha is going to start on 22nd of April 2016 and to continue only up to 21st of May 2016 and it schedule is only a couple of months away. The important factum which is actively considered by this Court is the fact that the Simhastha occurs only once in 12 years at Ujjain and lasts only for a period of 30 days and thus in the present; the circumstance which assumes more importance is the fact that Section 5 of the Act has not been invoked and the enquiry has been dispensed with. The extraordinary sovereign power of the State to acquire land is undoubted but the satisfaction of the urgency clause in the present circumstances is dis-satisfactory. Similarly the public purpose of acquiring the present disputed land is meant for, widening the road and obviously under usual circumstances there is already an existing road admeasuring 33 to 40 feet and the need of the city Ujjain is ordinarily satisfied. If the land was being acquired on account of public exigency of Simhastha then proper procedure has to be followed. The individual rights and civil rights of present petitioners regarding their disputed properties cannot be trampled upon and abdicated by Government in this fashion. Compulsory 23 compensation has undoubtedly provided as sovereign function and the State is entitled to its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State. However, if the procedure is prescribed then uncontroverted legal prinicple is that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certian way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. (Relied on Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another Civil Appeal No.1193 of 2012 (by the Supreme Court). I find in the present circumstances that the urgency clause has been wrongly invoked. Whereas the respondents have deliberated and pondered over the required acquisition; no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to represent their cases. The proposal was under active consideration since in the year 2011 and the notification was issued only on 07.02.2013.
19. In this light, I find that notification under Section 17 of the Act is also bad in law and requires to be quashed. In the result, the petitions are allowed and the impugned notification under Section 4(1) r/w. S.17(1) dated 07.02.2013 Annexure P/9 of the Land Acquisiton Act are hereby quashed so far as they pertain to the acquisition of petitioners' land. Consequently, the award by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 24.04.2015 regarding the petitioners is also 24 quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents may initiate fresh proceedings for the acquisition of the petitioners' land and the petitioners shall be free to file objections under Section 5-A(1) of the Act and they shall also be entitled to be heard in the inquiry to be conducted by the Collector in terms of Section 5-A(2) of the Act.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the petitions are allowed to extent herein above indicated.
Orginal order be retained in the record of Writ Petition No.4971/2013 and a copy thereof be placed in the record on W.P. Nos.4709/2013, 4970/13, 5074/2013, 5230/2013, 5608/2013 & 5781/2013.
Certified copy as per rules.
No costs.
(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti