Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had no notice or knowledge of the purpose of acquisition cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioners had also filed civil suits challenging the acquisition and have also claimed compensation. Therefore, no prejudice in any way has been caused to the petitioners (Please see 1980 MPU 407 : (AIR 1980 Madh Pra 19), Stateof M.P. v. Sugandhi.

18. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the compulsory acquisition of these lands is for the company M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd, and not for the establishment of an industrial area as also the argument that the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of these lands is net being paid by the State Government but by the Company has to be rejected outright in absence of any material placed on record by the petitioners especially when the respondents 1 to 5 have emphatically stated in their returns supported by affidavits that the said acquisition is not for a specific company or companies but actually it is for the development of an Industrial Area (Estate), which work shall be carried out by the M. P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd. and that the compensation is being paid by the State Government The respondent 6 M/s. Bsjaj Tempo Ltd. has also nowhere admitted that for this compulsory acquisition they have paid any money or that they arc going to pay the amount of compensation [Please see ATR 1984 SC 120).