The court emphasized that proper procedural safeguards, including meaningful hearings and recommendations, are essential in land acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act, affirming that violation of these rights contravenes constitutional protections.

Order :

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, J.

1. Two petitioners herein (petitioner No.2 died and her name has been deleted) have filed the instant writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of notification dated 3-7-2010 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) and also notification dated 6-9-2010 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and eventually seeks to quash the order dated 26-8-2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, on the ground that while making acquisition Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 has not been followed in its letter and spirit and the land has not been acquired for public purpose.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:-

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands bearing Khasra Nos.230/1, 372 & 373/2B and Khasra Nos.375 & 376, total area admeasuring 1.417 hectare, was sought to be acquired for private purpose. It is the further case of the petitioner that the land is sought to be acquired for a private company/ respondent No.6 which cannot be said to be the public purpose. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 herein issued notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of land for industrial purpose vide Annexure P-1 and immediately after issuance of the said notification, objection under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 was filed by the petitioner, however, the Land Acquisition Officer whose power has been conferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) heard the matter, but did not make any recommendation to the appropriate Government under Section 5A(2) and himself has disposed of the objection in terms of reply dated 13-8-2010 filed by the General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh, as such, neither recommendation was made under Section 5A(2) to the appropriate Government nor decision has been taken by the appropriate Government, therefore, the entire proceeding and subsequent notice is vitiated. It is also the case of the petitioner that the same company (respondent No.6) for which the lands have been acquired has purchased lands from the private owners on higher rates in the close vicinity of the lands of the petitioners and subsequently, lands of the petitioners are sought to be taken for the alleged public purpose. Furthermore, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat regarding the periphery within which the lands are to be acquired have been ignored and violated while taking lands of the petitioner for acquisition. It is also the case of the petitioner that the lands of the petitioner are agricultural lands as per the revenue records in khasra entries having crop of paddy over it, however, at the time of preparing documents for acquisition, the same has been considered and mentioned to be land of type TIKARA, which is devaluating the lands of the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, the writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of notifications under Sections 4(1) & 6 of the Act of 1894 and also seeking quashment of order dated 26-8-2010 rejecting the objection.

4. Return has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4/State stating inter alia that the acquisition process was carried out strictly in accorda