- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the concerned authorities of the Respondents to pay compensation for the acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner, which has been taken by the Respondents for the purposes of development of Coal Bearing Area. As it appears from the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, a dispute was sought to be raised by the counsel for the Respondents -C.C.L., stating that though the Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was issued, as back as in September, 1985 in respect of the lands proposed to be acquired, including the land belonging to the petitioner, but the possession of the entire land have not been taken over by the Respondents C.C.L. and as it appears, the land belonging to the petitioner is still in occupation of the petitioner and he is cultivating the same.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner denies and refutes such statements and claims that on account of the rampant development of the surrounding areas, the land of the petitioner has virtually become barren and uncultivable and therefore, it would be wrong to suggest even remotely that the petitioner is in cultivable occupation and possession of the land. The above controversy need not attract any serious attention in view of the fact that admittedly, the entire land including the land of the petitioner was notified for acquisition and pursuant to such Notification, the Respondent -C.C.L. has also taken up developmental work over portions of the acquired lands. The petitioner, whose land has been acquired pursuant to the Notification, has therefore, no other right to claim over the land, save and except, the demand for payment of the amount of compensation, payable for the acquisition as may be assessed by the competent authority in the Land Acquisition Proceedings.;