Al Haj Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd.& ... vs The Land Acquisition Collector ... on 4 February, 2009
Submissions made by Mr Bihani, counsel for the respondents, are these. There is no reason
to say that the s.4 notification is vitiated by vagueness or uncertainty. It is incorrect to say that the
proceedings initiated by the notification have lapsed. In view of the order dated August 31, 1998
the respondents could not make and publish the s.6 declaration. As was held in Sangappa
Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 145, Venkataswamappa v. Special
Deputy Commissioner, (1997) 9 SCC 128, and State of Kerala & Ors. v. Antony Fernandez & Anr.,
(1998) 3 SCC 556 - during pendency of proceedings in which order made by court remains in
force, the statutory period for making a s.6 declaration does not expire resulting in lapse of the
acquisition proceedings. It is not conceivable how the question of delay in concluding the
proceedings can be taken by the petitioners who moved the writ petition and obtained an interim
order. The s.5A decision was given after due application of mind. The case that the acquisition is
not for a public purpose, but for a company, and hence the proceedings, not initiated in terms of the
provisions of Part VII, are liable to be quashed, is a case made out only at the bar, because no such
case was stated by the petitioners in the writ petition. The company for which the land is sought to
be acquired is a government company, and hence, in view of the provisions of s.3(e) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no need to follow the provisions of Part VII.