A petitioner lacking locus standi cannot challenge acquisition notifications as valid public interest considerations prevail.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

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' besides to the consequent thereto award, thus on the ground, that the issuance of the notification(s) (supra) is a colourable exercise of power and are also discriminatory in nature.

2. The above notification(s) became respectively issued on 23.02.1989 (Annexure P-1) and on 22.02.1990 (Annexure P-3).

3. When the instant writ petition came up for hearing on 05.08.2024, the hereinafter extracted order was passed. It is pointed out that application for amending the writ petition bearing CM-31475-2001 was ordered to be heard alongwith main case, vide order dated 23.05.2003. Mr. Goel has referred to Annexure P-4 to point out that the land had been released on 15.12.2009, after the passing of the award on 21.02.1992 (Annexure P5) and in the case of petitioner No.l on 17.11.1994. It is, thus, submitted that since the case is based on the issue of discrimination, it would be appropriate that the reply be filed on merits to amended writ petition also. Let, needful be done alongwith the layout plan as referred in Annexure P-4, which will also show the location of all the three alleged ownership rights of the petitioners. The civil suit in which the stay was granted, on the basis of which the award was passed subsequently on 17.11.1994for khasra No.4374/1, be also appended for the perusal of this Court.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General, in terms of the order (supra) filed reply to the amended writ petition. Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that, the respondents have proceeded to adopt the practices of invidious discrimination, inasmuch as, the respondents releasing the lands of other land owners adjacent to the petitioners land, whereas, the respondents yet proceeding to subject the petition lands to acquisition, through making the impugned notification(s). Moreover, the lands released by the respondents were vacant lands, whereas, on the land of the petitioners, an industrial unit is in existence.

6. Further, the petitioners make a reference to specific instances, inasmuch as, to M/s Multifab and to M/s Multi Textiles, which are comprised in Khasra No. 5141, to contend that since the lands covered within the said industrial units become released from acquisition, therebys, the present subject lands are also to be treated at par with the said released lands, wherebys, they are also required to be released from acquisition.

Reasons for rejecting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. A perusal of the reply on affidavit reveals that petitioner No. 2 filed objections under Section 5-A of the 'Act of 1894' qua khasra No. 3809/1, 3810, 3511/2, 3512, 3821/2 and 3820, total land measuring OB 12B. The inspection of the subject site was conducted, whereins, it was found that petitioner No. 2 has constructed a boundary wall and two rooms which were of Class 'C' construction, thus prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894'.

8. Moreover, petitioners No. 1 and 3 did not file any objection qua their respective lands. Moreover, the land of petitioners No. 1 and 3 was lying vacant at the time of issuance of Section 4 notification.

9. Award No. 13 dated 21.02.1992, was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector and possession of the subj