Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) It is second round of litigation assailing the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents.
(2.) The notification dt. 20.01.1992 u/S.4(1) read with Sec.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by Appropriate Government came to be challenged by the present petitioners by filing their respective writ petitions and that came to be dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dt.02.09.1996. It appears from the record that all the writ petitioners preferred special appeals and all the special appeals other than preferred by Ram Charan came to be decided which includes the appeals preferred by the present petitioners, vide order dt.15.12.2005 ad infra : "In view of the subsequent events narrated before us, we grant liberty to the appellants to make representations before the concerned authority in regard to their grievance. The concerned authority is directed to dispose of the representations after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants as expeditiously as possible. 15 days time is granted to the appellants to submit representations. Till the representations are decided, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo in regard to the land in question."
(3.) However, the appeal preferred by Ram Charan remained pending which the Division Bench decided vide judgment dt.25.04.2007 (RLR 2007(2) Page 617). However, a finding came to be recorded in regard to notification dt.20.01.1992 holding that dispensing with the enquiry u/S.5A and invoking urgency clause in the facts and circumstances was not after due application of mind and accordingly the acquisition proceedings qua Ram Charan came to be quashed which is evident from the operative part of the judgment.;