The court affirmed the validity of land acquisition notifications, ruling that the petitioner was estopped from claiming release due to prior compliance and lack of challenge to earlier orders.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner asks for relief qua de-notification or for release of the petition lands, thus on the ground, that the notification(s) Annexure P-2, and, Annexure P-3, as became respectively issued on 15.11.2002, and, 12.11.2003, hence in terms of sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'), thus inviting the mandate of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short referred to as the 'Act of 2013'), whereby there occurs lapsing of the earlier launched acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894'. In alternate, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus being made upon the respondents concerned, to issue notification under Section 48 of the Act of 1894, thus notifying the release of the petition lands from acquisition.

Grounds raised in the instant petition

2. The grounds, as raised in the instant petition by the petitioner, are that the land of the petitioner i.e. 1 bigha 9 biswas and 18 biswasis was sought to be acquired vide the impugned notifications. It is further averred in the petition, that the petitioner company was earlier known as Purolater India Limited, but in terms of a scheme of merger or amalgamation, sanctioned by the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 27.5.2008, the name of the petitioner company was changed to Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd. It is further averred, that when the petitioner company was in the process of filing the Change of Land Use application, the impugned notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued. The petitioner had also filed objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894, however, no opportunity of hearing was granted to it. It is also averred in the instant petition, that the petitioner had also challenged the impugned notifications by filing CWP No. 17741 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.7.2005, and, in pursuance to the above order, a High Powered Committee was constituted, before whom the petitioner made its representation. However, no decision was made on the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 18725 of 2005, and, this Court through an order made thereons on 8.12.2005, stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the petition land. It is further stated that in compliance of the letter dated 1.8.2007 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner vide letter dated 13.8.2007 submitted two undertakings in the form of affidavits dated 14.8.2007, stating thereins that it would pay the proportionate internal and external development charges as and when demanded by the HSIIDC, and, thereafter requested the respondents concerned, to initiate the required process for issuance of notification under Section 48 of the Act of 1894. It is further averred in the instant petition, that vide letter dated 29.9.2007, the petitioner applied for the grant of Change of Land Use permission. Thereafter, the petition (supra) became dismissed as having become infructuous by this Court in view of letter dated 1.8.2007 (Annexure P-9) issued by the respondent-State. It is further averred in the instant petition, that in view of the decision taken by the State Govt., and, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 1.8.2007, all the concerned departments have initiated the process for release of the land of the petitioner-company. Moreover, despite all the conditions imposed by the respondent State being duly complied with by the petitioner company, the respondents had failed to issue a formal notification under Section 48 of the Act of 1894.

Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

3. The learned senior counsel submits, that he does not press the prayer made under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, and, confines his prayer only to the alternate relief (supra) made in the instant petition relating to the makings of a