PREM BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been heard along with M. P. No. 1169 of 1974 (Sardar Bahu and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and 2 others), since both the petitions are based on similar facts and common grounds and are against the common notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Shri S. L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in both the cases, had also made the statement that the arguments put forth in this petition will also be adopted for the other petition, i.e. M. P. No. 1169/ 74. Under these circumstances, the order passed in this case will also govern the disposal of M. P. No, 1169/74.

(2.) Certain agricultural lands belonging to the petitioners in both the cases have been acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of establishing industry in Sagar district and the said purpose has been declared as public purpose for which acquisition has been made by the State Government Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 have been issued on 79- 1974 and 17/9/1974 respectively and they were published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 13/9/1974 and 27/9/1974 accordingly.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid notifications on the ground that the proceedings taken for acquiring their lands are mala fide and have been taken in colourable exercise of powers under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioners, the acquisition of lands is for the purpose of a company, i.e. M/s. Central India Paper and Board Mills (Pvt.) Limited, in which one Rajkumar Jain is interested. According to them, the purpose of establishing the industry is not a public purpose. The petitioners urged that since the acquisition is for the company, the proceedings are vitiated for want of non-compliance of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, which is mandatory in cases of acquisition for companies. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also urged that the course of holding enquiry under Section 5-A and the opportunity of hearing objections has been avoided mala fide. There was no material before the State Government for forming an opinion that the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act were applicable and as such, due to emergent requirements, there was no necessity for applying the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act regarding enquiry before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that since the lands, already under cultivation, cannot be treated as arable lands, Section 17 (1) of the Act could not be applied to the present case concerning agricultural lands already under cultivation. It was also urged that since the notification under Section 4 of the Act has not been published in the locality by affixing a copy of the same and promulgating, in the neighbouring area, subsequent proceedings in pursuance of the said notification under Section 4 of the Act are illegal and vitiated.