J.M. Panchal, J. - (1.) The Respondent Narmada Bachao Andolan (hereinafter called as NBA) has filed the aforesaid applications for expunging certain adverse remarks made in paragraphs 129-132 and 145 of the judgment and order in the aforesaid civil appeals dated 11.5.2011.
(2.) These applications have been filed on the grounds that adverse remarks made against the applicants are unwarranted and uncalled nor based on any material/evidence on record. More so, they were not necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy involved in the appeals. Thus, the same may be expunged. In the said appeals, a large number of factual and legal issues had arisen. However, this Court was concerned with acquisition of land to the extent of 284.03 hectares falling in 5 villages named therein for the reason that the State authorities had taken a decision to abandon the land acquisition proceedings and not to conclude the same. Before the High Court the applicants had pleaded that order of the Authorities to abandon the proceedings was void ab-initio as possession of the land in dispute had already been taken. The High Court came to the conclusion that as the possession of the land in dispute had already been taken it was not permissible for the Appellants herein to resort to the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 1894 Act).
(3.) When the matter came in appeal before this Court, the factual controversy arose as to who was in actual physical possession of the land. The NBA had taken a stand that as the tenure holders of the said land had already been dispossessed the question of abandoning the land acquisition proceedings could not arise. The State authorities submitted that actual physical possession is still with the tenure holders and the stand taken by the NBA was not factually correct. It was in view thereof that this Court on 24.2.2011 passed the following order: The learned Counsel appearing for the parties would be at liberty to submit their written submissions within 10 days from today in SLP(C) Nos. 31047-31061/2009 and SLP(C) Nos. 34195-34209/2009. However, during the course of hearing it has been seriously contended by the State of M.P. that actual physical possession of the land ad-measuring 284.03 hect. falling in five villages viz. Dharadi, Kothmir, Narsinghpura, Nayapura and Guwadi has not been taken by the State, in spite of resorting to acquisition proceedings to a certain extent. This fact has been seriously refuted by Respondent No. 1 i.e. Narmada Bachao Andolan and it has been contented that actual physical possession has been taken, which is projected in various documents including the affidavits sworn by the oustees/cultivators of the said land. They have also placed reliance on the entries in the revenue records which reflected the position that the Executive Engineer of the Company was in possession of the said land measuring 284.03 hect. also. In the light of serious contentions raised by both the parties it is in fact not possible for us to come to a definite conclusion as to who is in actual possession of the land today. In view of this, we deem it fit and proper to request the learned District Judge, Indore to make a spot inspection and submit his report with regard to the land ad-measuring 284.03 hect. situated in the aforesaid five villages. Before going to the spot, he will inform the parties concerned so that they may, if so desire, remain present at the time of inspection and render proper assistance in identifying the land in question. We clarify that we are not concerned with the total land of those villages, rather the controversy is limited to 284.03 hect., which the State does not want to acquire. It may also be mentioned in the report as to whether there is any crop standing on the said land or part of it and if it is so, who had sown the crop. If the crop has recently been removed or land has been tilled, who has done so. Let the report be submitted by the District Judge within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order. ;