- (1.) The rejection of the claim made by the petitioners that the State should withdraw from the acquisition of land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) has led to the filing of these five petitions.
(2.) The State Government took a decision in the year 2001 to construct a Taj Expressway towards east of Yamuna from New Okhla Industrial Development Authority NOIDA to Agra. The project included building of a six lane access controlled 160 Kms Expressway. The Company undertaking the project was to invest the entire money for the project with a right to collect tolls for a period of 36 years on the roads to be notified by the State Government under a 'Built Operate and Transfer Scheme'. The cost of construction was also to be realised by the Company undertaking the project from the five parcels of land, each of 500 hectares to be provided to it on lease along the Expressway for a period of 90 years for commercial, amusement, industrial, institutional and residential complex purpose. Thus, land had to be acquired by the State Government not only for the construction of the 160 Kms Expressway but also for providing 2500 hectares of land to the Company undertaking the project at five different locations along the Expressway.
(3.) It is in connection with a very small area of land situated in one of these five parcels at Aligarh that the petitioners subsequently invoked the provisions of Section 48 of the Act that provides that the State Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. Earlier, the representations filed by the petitioners were rejected for the reason that the State Government claimed that it had taken possession of the land and, therefore, could not withdraw from the acquisition. This order of the State Government was set aside by the High Court in the earlier writ petitions holding that possession of the acquired land had not been taken in accordance with law by the State. A direction was, accordingly, issued to the State to decide the claims afresh. The State Government has again rejected the representations.;