The court emphasized the importance of public purpose over individual interests in land acquisition proceedings and affirmed the impugned notifications and the consequent award.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners challenge the validity of a notification, as became issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act of 1894’). Moreover, the petitioners also make a challenge to the validity of issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the ‘Act of 1894’.

2. The above notifications became respectively issued on 27.08.1987 (Annexure P-1) and on 22.08.1988 (Annexure P-5) and the consequent thereto award became passed on 20.03.1989.

3. Significantly, interim directions were passed in the instant writ petition by this Court on 04.11.1993, thus staying dispossession of the petitioners and the said directions were made absolute, through an order made by this Court on 13.12.1993.

4. Through a decision made on 23.11.2007, the writ petition (supra) was disposed of with certain directions. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereinafter:

“..... Since the petitioners have no objection to the acquisition of the land covered by the public utilities mentioned above, the application for vacation of stay i.e. C.M. No. 13172 of 2007 is allowed and stay in respect of the acquired land covered under khasra No. 6/1 and 10 and marked yellow in sajra plan of Sector 29 is hereby vacated.

In view of the vacation of stay in respect of the land covered by public utilities, the remaining land is not at all required for any public purpose because in respect of the part of the land which was acquired for public purpose, stay order has been vacated today. This petition is disposed of with a direction that the part of the petitioners’ land marked yellow shall stand acquired while the remaining part of the acquired land shall be released from acquisition altogether. The petitioners may pursue their case for compensation for the acquired portion before the appropriate forum.”

5. Feeling aggrieved from the order (Supra), the State Government-HUDA preferred LPA No. 129-2012 before this Court. Through an order drawn on 19.01.2017, the learned Division Bench of this Court, thus ordered for restoration of the writ petition (supra) to its original number, thus for a decision on merits being made thereons. The relevant portion of the verdict (supra) is extracted hereinafter:

“..........After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge fell in grave error in concluding that the appellants had foregone their contest in the main writ petitions qua the entire acquisition questioned by the land owners. It was only with a limited prayer that they had approached this Court to permit them to continue with the development works and release some portion of the land from the impact of the stay order since these works were of paramount importance and of an urgent nature. The entire reading of the applications does not remotely suggest that they intended to settle the writ petitions in these terms.

Consequently, we accept the present appeals and modify the order of the learned Single Judge to say that it would be applicable to the land that stand utilized for public purposes but in so far as challenge to the remaining land is concerned the parties would be free to agitate the same on merits. Therefore, we restore the writ petitions bearing nos. 3340, 3342, 3344 of 1991 and 10628 and 10068 of 1998 to their original numbers and direct their listing as per roster so that they can be decided on merits qua the controversy and the benefits under Section 24(2) of the Act.

Since the affidavit of the Administrator was to be filed only in one connected LPA bearing no. 2256 of 2011, the costs imposed vide this Court’s order dated 18.10.2016 in all the LPAs shall stand waived and will stand in said LPA only.”

6. The petitioners now challenge the issuance of notifications for acquisition (supra), thus through invoking the mandate of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilita