- (1.) This order would be read in continuation of my order dated 9th November, 1990.
(2.) In pursuance of my order dated 9th November, 1990, the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (C), Kaithal, has sent to this Court the order dated 23rd November, 1990, passed by him, by which the objections filed by the writ petitioners have been duly considered and rejected. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that in spite of the rejection of the objections, the acquisition must go inasmuch as the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on the same day i.e. 31st March, 1989, by invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17(2) of the Act. Technically the petitioners' counsel may be right, but in view of the following two facts, the said notifications cannot be said to be bad :- (i) In Civil Writ Petition No. 7949 of 1989, filed by the petitioners for quashing the same notification, an order was passed by the Division Bench on 14th June, 1989 which has already been reproduced by me in my order dated 9th November, 1990. That petition was dismissed with the observations that the authorities were to dispose of the objections filed by the writ petitioners fist and only thereafter take steps for recovery of possession. So nothing was found wrong in the notifications as such but the only observation made was that the objections of the petitioners should be decided before taking possession; and (ii) In pursuance of my order dated 9th November, 1990, actually now, by order dated 23rd November, 1990, the Land Acquisition Collector has decided the objections on merits by passing a detailed speaking order.
(3.) In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act having been issued on the same date, are liable to be quashed.;