- (1.) THE petitioners in this writ petition dated August 27, 1998 are questioning the acquisition proceedings initiated by publishing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the Calcutta gazette on June 16, 1998. It has been stated in the notification that the land, particulars whereof have been given therein, is likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz. for the purpose of a permanent accommodation for Rajasthali Emporium of Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. ; and that the land will be acquired at the public expense, i. e. at the expense of Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
(2.) THE writ petition was admitted by order dated August 31, 1998 whereby liberty was granted to the petitioners to file objection under Section 5a and direction was given that if the objection was filed, then it should be dealt with in accordance with law, but no effect should be given to the final decision without the Court's leave. The petitioners submitted their section 5a objection on September 8, 1998 and after hearing them, the collector disposed of the objection by a decision dated November 12, 1998, a copy whereof was annexed to the opposition dated December 3, 1998 filed by him. Thereafter, the petitioners took out an application for amendment, and the prayer was ultimately allowed by the Division Bench on December 3, 2008. By amendment the Section 5a decision was challenged.
(3.) MR. Dutta, Counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submissions:- (i) for vagueness and uncertainty in the descriptions of the public purpose and the property sought to be acquired, the Section 4 notification is liable to be quashed; (ii) although by the order dated August 31,1998 the respondents were given liberty to enforce the Section 5a decision after obtaining the Court's leave, they have not taken leave to make and publish the Section 6 declaration within the statutory period, and hence the proceedings initiated by the Section 4 notification lapsed by operation of law; (iii) delay in concluding the proceedings is indicative of a colourable exercise of power, and hence they are liable to be quashed; (iv) the decision given in the Section 5a objection is bad in law, since the collector has considered irrelevant factors ignoring the relevant ones, and thus failed to apply his mind; and (v) though it is apparent from the notification that the acquisition was for a company, steps were not taken to follow the statutory provisions of Part-VII, especially meant for acquisition of land for companies, and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions he has relied upon Munshi Singh and Ors: v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1150, The State of Gujarat and Anr. v, Patel chaturbhai Narsinbhai and Ors. , AIR 1975 SC 629, Radhey Sham Gupta and ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , AIR 1982 P and H 519 (FB), Eugenio Misquita and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors. , 1997 (8) SCC 47, Municipal Board v. Imperial tobacco of India Ltd. and Anr. , 1999 (1) SCC 566, S. H. Rangappa v. State of karnataka and Anr. , 2002 (1) SCC 538, and Hindusthan Petroleum corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Ors. , 2005 (7) SCC 627.;