The court established that adherence to procedural fairness and the right to a hearing are fundamental in land acquisition processes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

ORDER

1. With the consent of both the parties the matter is heard finally.

2. The prayer made by the petitioners in the present writ petition reads as under:-

'It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow and accept this writ petition and pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby:-

i) quashing and setting-aside the award dated 03/08/2012 (Annexure-6) being contrary to law;

ii) declaring the notification dated 27/01/2009 under Section 4 and declaration dated 28/06/2010 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 to be void ab-initio, illegal so far as it relates to the land of the petitioner;

iii) quashing and setting-aside the entire land acquisition proceedings in pursuance to the notification dated 27/01/2009, declaration dated 28/06/2010 and award dated 03/08/2012 and the land of the petitioner be left out from the acquisition;

iv) awarding any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court, may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.

v) awarding cost in favour of the petitioner.'

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-State initiated the acquisition proceedings for acquiring the land for public purpose i.e. for extension of existing RIICO industrial area and in this regard a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1894') was issued on 27.01.2009 which was duly published in the official Gazette on 04.02.2009 and notification/circular in respect of the local area was issued on 15.02.2009 in which land of petitioner's Khasra No. 1409, 1410 & 1396 was also included, publication of which was made in two daily newspapers on 02.07.2009. The petitioners did not submit written objections, however, raised oral objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, which were duly considered and decided by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 16.06.2010 and thereafter only the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 28.06.2010 and final award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 03.08.2012 including land of the petitioners.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the oral objections raised by the petitioners and wrongly decided the same without any cogent reason and non-application of mind. Counsel further submitted that the discretion exercised by the respondents is discriminatory as some part of the land has been left out from acquisition by the respondents while concluding the process of land acquisition. Counsel further submitted that even after acquiring land of the petitioners, reasonable compensation in lieu thereof has not been paid/deposited by the respondents. Counsel further submitted that according to the tentative plan/map, land of the petitioners is situated at the extreme corner and not in the midst, therefore the respondents ought not to have acquired the land of the petitioners and apart from it, even if that is acquired the compensation in cash should have been paid to the khatedars of the land holders.

5. In support of his contentions counsel relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Beml Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd.

Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 248 where in para No.7, it has been held as under:-

'7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that whatever be the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer in his report under Section 5A, they were merely recommendations and the State Government was not bound to accept them. The State Government had wide discretion to accept or reject the said report under Section 5A of the Act and take independent decision to continue or discontinue the acquisition proceedings in respect of any particular land proposed to be acquired. Wide, the discretion may be; but not wi