( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the notification dated 29-3-1986, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and the notification dated 4-5-1987 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the act), the appellants and some others filed writ petition nos. 7837, 8113 and 8958 of 1987, which were heard together and disposed of vide the order impugned in these appeals. Writ appeal nos. 4630 of 1995 and 95 of 1996 have been filed by some of the owners of the land and writ appeal No. 75 of 1996 by the society which was impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petitions. The landowners have submitted that instead of remanding the case to enquire into the objections filed by them, the learned single judge should have allowed the writ petitions by quashing the impugned notifications, whereas the appellant-society has prayed for setting aside the order of the learned single judge passed in writ petiton No. 7837 of 1987 and dismissal of the afore-said writ petitions. It has to be noted that writ petition nos. 8113 of 1987 and 8958 of 1987, were totally dismissed by the learned single judge. It is further to be noted that the landowners who were the petitioners in writ petition No. 8958 of 1987 have not preferred any appeal against the order of the learned single judge.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for adjudication of the pleas raised in these appeals are that the lands, the subject-matter of litigation in the aforesaid three writ petitions, were notified vide notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, proposing to acquire the same for the purpose of forming a lay out by the respondent-housing co-operative society. Pursuant to the publication of the notifications, the writ petitioners filed their objections before the special land acquisition officer who, after holding an enquiry, submitted the records for consideration of the state government. The respondent-state, thereafter, condoned the delay in filing the report under Section 5-a of the act vide its order dated 25-4-1987 and issued declaration under Section 6 (1-a) of the act on 5-5-1987. The impugned notifications were challenged mainly on the grounds that. " (I) there is no prior approval of the scheme of the 4th respondent by the government as prescribed by Section 3 (f) (vi) of the act. (ii) the preliminary notification was issued by the second respondent in violation of Section 4 (1) of the act and the third respondent has not considered each and every objections filed by the petitioners nor made any recommendation to the government. The order over-ruling the objections of the petitioners and directing issue of a declaration is violative of Section 5-a (2) of the act and, therefore, the declaration is vitiated. (iii) the acquisition for the society in question is not for a public purpose as the lands in question were acquired for distribution of sites to persons who are ineligible to become members of the society". the learned single judge had held that the acceptance of recommendations of the three-member committee by the government was sufficient to infer that there was a 'prior approval of the state government. It was further held that in view of the directions of the government to the deputy commissioner to initiate acquisition proceedings for the benefit of the respondent-housing co-operative society, it could be presumed that the government was satisfied regarding the need to acquire the lands for the society before issuing preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the act. The contention of the writ petitioners that the acquisition of the property for the benefit of the respondent-housing co-operative society was not an acquisition for public purpose was also repelled. Writ petition nos. 8113 of 1987 and 8958 of 1987 were dismissed on the ground that as the landowners therein had filed claim applications claiming compensation, they were estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings

Click Here to Read the rest of this document