Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) Because of pure question of law being involved in the instant writ petition this Court permitted the parties to proceed on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition without calling for affidavits and also invited various members of the Bar to address such legal point in order to set at rest any confusion in interpreting the provisions relating to Act II of 1948 and Section 9(3a) and (3b) of Act I of 1894.
(2.) The undisputed facts which have been unfurled are that the land of the petitioner was requisitioned under Section 3 of Act II of 1948 on the basis of notice dated 26.04.1984. The possession of the property was taken on 10th May, 1984 on the basis of the aforesaid requisition notice and, thereafter, remained with the State Government. Subsequently, the State Government decided to acquire the said property and issued the notice under Section 4(1) of Act II of 1948 on 24th November, 1993. Indubitably, even after the initiation of acquisition proceeding; to be more precise upon issuance of a notice under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948, no award was published. The petitioner approached this Court for declaration that the purported acquisition of the land / property is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of various provisions of the Constitution of India with further direction to pay compensation for damages suffered by the petitioner for such illegal and wrongful acquisition.
(3.) Apparently, the aforesaid relief cannot ordinarily be granted without permitting the State respondents to respond to this averments made in the writ petition but the learned Advocates representing the petitioner agrees the writ petition to be taken up when the State raises a question of law as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment. To elucidate the narration of the question of law involved in the instant writ petition, so raised by the State, the submission of the learned Advocate General is recorded hereinafter.;