- (1.) ALL the writ petitions have been filed challenging in common the land acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioners' land in respect whereof notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 16.05.2008, followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act on 04.11.2008 and finally an award on 06.10.2009 by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter 'LAO').
(2.) MR . Ashish Saksena, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the entire land acquisition proceedings qua the petitioners' land are liable to be quashed and set aside primarily on the ground that the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 were not considered by the LAO. He has submitted that consequently the petitioners were denied their only defence to the land acquisition envisaged under the Act of 1894. This, counsel argued, has entailed denial of principles of natural justice vitiating the award dated 06.10.2009. Other grounds agitated in the writ petitions to challenge the land acquisition proceedings culminating in the award were not rightly pressed in the absence of the requisite factual foundation. In reply, Mr. R.D. Rastogi, appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, appearing for respondent No.4, have submitted that the writ petitions ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone in laying a challenge to land acquisition proceedings. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Ors. Vs. Kollutla OBI Reddy and Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 493] has held that where there is a delayed challenge to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 and the declaration under Section 6 thereof, writ petitions ought not to be entertained by the High Courts. Counsel submit that if at all the petitioners were aggrieved of the land acquisition proceedings including the alleged non-consideration of their objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894, they ought to have approached this Court soon after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 04.11.2008 and not waited till the passing of the award on 06.10.2009 and for four months thereafter. Counsel have further submitted that even otherwise the case set up by the petitioners with regard to their having filed objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 within 30 days of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 is absolutely false, as on the basis of record available with LAO, no such objections were filed by the petitioners. It has been submitted that 35 persons had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 against the acquisition proceedings commencing with the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 16.05.2008 and the names of the petitioners are not reflected in the said list. It is submitted that the respondents have no personal animus against the petitioners to exclude their purported objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 from consideration in the event the objections had in fact been filed. It has been submitted that non-filing of the objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 has been construed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Talson Real Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2007 (13) SCC 186] as entailing waiver of right to challenge the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Counsel submit that subsequent to the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, the only ground of challenge can be colorable exercise of power by the State Government and no such ground has even been pleaded in the petitions. No challenge based on malafides and colorable exercise of power has been set up. The declaration of "public purpose " of the acquisition is thus 'conclusive evidence' under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1894 which cannot be overlooked by the Court. No ground based on colorable exercise of power in issuing the Section 6 declaration by the State Government having been agitated, the Section 6 of the Act of 1894 declaration in the instant case is thus unassailable before that court. After a Section 6 of the Act of 1894 declaration only determination of compensation under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 and a making of the award within the statutory time frame under Section 11A of the Act of 1894 remains. It is submitted that it is also not the petitioners' case that the award has not been passed within 2 years of the last of the publication of Section 6 of the Act of 1894 declaration. Consequently the award dated 06.10.2009 is beyond the ken of judicially review on any legally tenable and sustainable ground. It is submitted that aside of the aforesaid, the petitioners have also admittedly filed their references under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 before the competent civil court and some even agreed to accept the compensation awarded albeit under protest. It has been submitted that in the circumstance of references under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 having been filed, the petitioners should also be taken to have acquiesced in the land acquisition proceedings and thereafter stand confined to their case before the civil court for the enhancement of the compensation determined by the LAO in the proceedings.
(3.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.;