- (1.) Facts and Contentions : The acquisition of 73.3 hectares of dry land situate in Rangwasa village of Indore District and Tehsil belonging to the appellants and others is the subject-matter of challenge in these appeals filed by the landholders. The said extent of land was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for the alleged public purpose of 'establishment of diamond park'. This parcel of land together with an extent of 44.8 hectares of Government land was meant to be placed at the disposal of the Industries Department and/or Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nigam') for the purpose of allotting the same to various industrial units - the foremost among them being the 9th respondent-company, for setting up diamond cutting and polishing units with modern technology. The proposal in this regard emanated from the General Manager of District Industries Centre, on the initiative taken by the 9th Respondent. After the land was located by a joint inspection committee of officials, the Government of Madhya Pradesh (Commerce and Industries Department) had given sanction 'in principle' for the acquisition. The District Collector, Indore through his letter dated 24-1-1996 sought the approval of the Commissioner, Indore Division to invoke Section 17(1) of the Act in order to expedite the process of acquisition. In that letter, the Collector mentioned that prestigious exporters from India as well as foreign countries were likely to establish their units in this park which would generate good deal of foreign exchange and create employment potential.
(2.) The Commissioner accorded his approval by a communication dated 29-1-1996. This resulted in the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 30th June, 1996 by the Collector and Ex-officio Deputy Secretary to Government, to whom it appears the powers were delegated. By the same Notification, the enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with. It was indicated in the Notification that the land map could be inspected in the office of the SDO, Indore and General Manager, District Industries Centre. A few days later i.e., on 9-2-1996, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. The Collector (Land Acquisition) was directed to take possession after the expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of notice under Section 9(2) of the Act. Before the possession was taken, the writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution were filed and an order of status quo was granted. The writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed. In the meanwhile, it appears that an interim award was made for a sum of Rs. 2,14,91,115 representing 80% of the estimated compensation amount. The SLPs filed in this Court were disposed of on 11-10-1996 on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh that the Notification under Section 6 will be withdrawn and the procedure under Section 5-A will be followed. Accordingly, the Collector, Indore District published a Notification on 15-10-1996 withdrawing the declaration under Section 6. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted a report under Section 5-A overruling the objections put forward by the appellants. On a perusal of the report, the Collector as well as the Commissioner decided to go ahead with the acquisition. Accordingly, a fresh Notification under Section 6 was issued on 3-1-1997. As in the earlier Notification, the public purpose was mentioned as 'establishment of a diamond park'. This was again challenged by the aggrieved landholders including the appellants. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions which were filed by the present appellants having interest in about 63 acres in Survey No. 684. Against that judgment, these appeals by special leave have come up. This Court, while taking note of certain additional facts disclosed in I.A. No. 2/2001, passed an order on 29-8-2001 formulating four questions in respect of which the findings of the High Court were called for. The following are the four questions : (1) Whether M/s. B. Arun Kumar International Ltd,. deposited a sum of Rs. 3 crores for payment of compensation to the land holders for acquisition of land for them. (2) Whether in view of the facts stated in I.A. No. 2/2001 and the counter-affidavit and further affidavits the acquisition of land was for the Company and not for public purpose. (3) If the findings on question Nos. 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, whether any subsequent withdrawal of compensation amount by M/s. Arun Kumar International Ltd. would not affect the invalidity of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. (4) If the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 are in the affirmative, whether the State Government also contributed partly towards compensation to be paid to the land holders and in its absence the acquisition of land for public purpose is invalid. The questions were framed in the light of the appellants' contention that the acquisition was not for a public purpose and it was only meant to benefit the 9th Respondent-Company and its associates which contributed its own funds for facilitating the acquisition.
(3.) The matters were directed to be listed on receipt of the findings of the High Court with a further direction not to treat the cases as part-heard.;