- (1.) I.A. No. 4766 of 2014 1. The writ petition has been filed seeking release of the land in question in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the said land was neither acquired for the Swarnrekha Multipurpose Project nor required by the State Government. The petitioners have based their claim on letter dated 13.9.2007. The writ petition was filed on 30.9.2010 and thereafter, counter, affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. The respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have filed supplementary counter affidavit and thereafter, on 9.9.2014 the present application seeking amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition has been filed. The petitioners have sought addition of the following prayer in the prayer clause of the writ petition:-- "For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings in connection with the land involved in this case has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 particularly in view of the fact that the compensation amount has admittedly been deposited in Government Treasury and not in court and further hold that the entire land acquisition proceedings so far as the land of the petitioners is concerned is fit to be set aside on account of noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, rules and instructions/circulars issued thereunder as already mentioned in the main writ petition." The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the writ petition the petitioners produced a typed copy of letter dated 13.9.2007, the veracity of which was doubted and disputed by the respondents and therefore, the petitioners obtained a true copy of letter dated 13.9.2007 through RTI. It is stated that the petitioners obtained copies of the letters dated 19.2.2008, 23.6.2014, 2.7.2008, 20.4.2010, etc. through RTI and the present amendment has been filed for bringing these documents on record in support of the claim made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that in view of the amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, the filing of the amendment application was necessitated. The amendment as sought by the petitioners would not change the nature of the case and it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents, if the amendment is allowed by the Court. It is further submitted that while deciding the application seeking amendment, the Courts would generally take a liberal approach and amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding. It is further submitted that if the application for amendment is not allowed, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The State itself filed the Title Suit No. 25 of 2011 seeking declaration of its title over the suit property and sought a declaration that the acquisition of the suit property was in accordance with law.
(2.) Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned AAG submitted that the land in question was acquired in the year, 1983 itself and the petitioners have admitted that the compensation amount was deposited in treasury. After all these years the petitioners now have challenged the acquisition. Basing their claim through letter dated 13.9.2007, they have moved this Court seeking release of their land. It is submitted that insofar, as Title Suit No. 25 of 2011 is concerned, it was primarily filed in view of the subsequent transfer made by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2, and that was the reason a declaration was sought from the Court with respect to validity of the acquisition and title in favour of the State.
(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;