PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SINCE on similar set of facts same prayers have been made, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) THE land measuring 81 bigha 19 biswa was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 4. 2. 1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act' ). Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 27. 3. 1992. THE land sought to be acquired for the purpose of development and expansion of industrial area for the respondent No. 3 - RIICO also included about 21 bigha 6 biswa land of the petitioners. After completion of the proceedings the first award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18. 4. 1994 in regard to the Land measuring 34 bigha 4 biswa. THE award in regard to remaining land could not be passed in view of some interim orders passed by the courts. THEreafter, award in regard to remaining land measuring 4 bigha 10 biswa was also passed on 8. 11. 1995. THE award dated 18. 4. 1994 included the land measuring 11 bigha of the petitioners, whereas, the award dated 8. 11. 1995 included remaining land measuring 10 bigha 6 biswa of the petitioners. Challenging the entire acquisition proceedings and the awards passed above, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners on 18. 7. 1996 with the following prayers:- " (a) to quash and set aside the notification dated 4. 2. 1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act (Annexure No. 1 ). (b) to quash and set aside the notification dated 27. 3. 1992 issued under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure No. 6 ). (c) to quash and set aside the award dated 18. 4. 1994 of the Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 3) (Annexure No. 9) (d) to quash and set aside the award dated 8. 11. 1995 of the land Acquisition officer (respondent No. 3) (Annexure No. 10 ). (e) the respondents be restrained from acquiring the land of the petitioner in future. " This court, on the basis of statement made by counsel for the petitioner that similar writ petitions have already been admitted, while admitting the writ petitions also passed an interim order on 20. 8. 1996, directing that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the land in question. Mr. B. L. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, along with Miss Raj Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assailed the acquisition proceedings and the awards passed in the present writ petitions mainly on the ground that there was no public purpose in acquiring the land in question since earlier also the notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued, however, the same was not acted upon as per report of the concerning officers. It has further been submitted that objections under Section 5 of the Act have not been properly decided by the authorities concerned. The objection in regard to limitation as prescribed under section 6 of the Act has also been raised in so far as notification under Section 6 was published after more than a year. It has also been submitted that since the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has not been deposited by the respondent Corporation and no notice for payment of compensation has been issued by the concerning authorities the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse and inference should be drawn that the land is not required for the purpose it was acquired. Mr. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation, has submitted that the entire acquisition proceedings have been completed as per provisions of the Act. So far as compensation is concerned, the same could not be disbursed in view of the interim order passed by this court and the respondent Corporation is prepared to deposit the entire compensation as awarded in the name of the petitioners as per directions of this court. It has further been submitted that out of total land measuring 81 bigha 19 biswa so acquired, the dispute now is only in regard to the land measuring 21 bigha 6 biswa belonging to the petitioners for which the possession could not be taken in view of the interim order passed by this Court. So far as remaining land is concerned, the acquisition proceedings have already been completed.
(3.) AFTER having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record as also the relevant provisions of the Act. As has come on record, the petitioners appeared to have parted with the land in question to a housing society by way of an agreement to sale way back on 15. 4. 1975 itself. No objections, whatsoever, were filed by the petitioners after issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. A copy of objections submitted by one of the plot holders who alleged to have taken possession of the land through a society has been submitted along with the writ petition. A bare reading of the objections so submitted by the said plot holder would show that possession of the entire land in question had already been given by the petitioners to the society in April, 1975 itself after realising the entire price as agreed upon between the parties. The above assertion made by the objector - plot holder has no where been disputed by the petitioner in their writ petitions. Having parted with the land in question long back about 15 years earlier the petitioners now cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they are still in possession of the land in question. Even as per averment made in the writ petitions as also the documents annexed with the writ petitions, the interim order passed by this Court on 20. 8. 1996 has no relevance at all since the petitioners were not having any possession over the land in dispute and thus there was no question of dispossessing the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions. The alleged plot holders also never came to be impleaded as party to the writ petitions. That apart, as it evident from the award also, notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 4. 2. 1991. Apart from publication of notice in the official gazette as also in two news papers the same was also put on the notice boards of Panchayat Samiti, the office of the Tehsildar as also pasted in the concerned villages for general notice. As per report of the Tehsildar, since notices were notified to the concerned villagers so affected on 3. 5. 1991, the notification under Section 6 was published within the period prescribed on 2. 3. 1992. ;