- (1.) Heard Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-Respondents. Petitioners before this Court seek quashing of the Notification dated 24.12.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 1894") published in the official gazette on 4.1.2014 as also the Notification dated 20.1.2015 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(2.) The notifications are challenged on the ground that the Notification under Section 4 was published in the newspapers in the year 2013, while the same Notification was published in the official gazette on 4.1.2014. Date of publication in the gazette is subsequent to the enforcement of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 2013") which has been enforced w.e.f. 1.1.2014. It is, therefore, submitted that the date of publication of the Notification in the official gazette is the date of initiation of the acquisition proceeding which is subsequent to the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as per Section 114 of Act, 2013, which is legally not permissible. Similarly, it is stated that Notification under Section 6 of the Act has been admittedly issued in the year 2015 when the Act, 2013 had came into force. Because of Section 114 of Act, 2013, the proceeding under the old Act, 1894 could not have been continued. The other ground which has been pressed before this Court is that the petitioner filed his objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894, which had not been considered before issuance of Section 6 notification and that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners.
(3.) We may first deal with the issue with regard to the publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 in the official gazette in the month of January, 2014 i.e. whether the publication of such notification in the facts of the case under the old Act, 1894 is legally sustainable or not?;