The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the statutory time limit for making the award under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Besides assailing the proposed award dated 31-12-2005, by Collector (Land Acquisition), Bhopal, in Regular Land Acquisition Case No. l/A/82/95-96, petitioners also call in question the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published in the M.P. Rajpatra, dated 24-11-95. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in M.P. Rajpatra on 15-5-1998 (as per order passed in W.P. No. 4176/1998 deemed to have been published on 31-3-1998).

2. It is not in dispute that-

(i) The petitioners are members of Sarvodaya Housing Co-operative Society.

(ii) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhopal vide its resolution dated 22-7-1987 sought 126.27 acres of land situated at Berasia Road and Karod Kalan, of which 103.96 acres was acquired on 30-11-1994.

(iii) Vide resolution dated 5-10-1995 acquired 28.71 acres of land which included the land belonging to society of which the petitioners are member.

(iv) Notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 issued on 3-11-1995 was challenged by some of the members of Society, viz., Vijay Kumar and others Vs. State of M.P. andothers, W.P. No. 3195/1994; Ranjit Singh Thakur, vide Writ Petition No. 416/1996 and by M.S. Lodhi Commercial Company, vide Writ Petition No. 487/1996.

(v) That W.P. No. 416/1996 and W.P. No. 487/1996 was decided on 24-4-1997, in the following terms :-

"13. However, no challenge has been made before us regarding the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Therefore, we do not want to touch that part. The challenge to the notification is with regard to invoking of urgency clause and dispensing with the objection under Section 5-A of the Act and that has been succeeded as mentioned above. We, therefore, quash the notification dated 3-11-95 to limited extent of invoking urgency clause dispensing with Section 5-A of the Act and direct that objection under Section 5-A of the Act shall be heard by the Land Acquisition Officer and then he shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The Government shall then proceed further in accordance with the provision of the Act.

14. Consequently, we allow both these petitions in part as indicated above. The Land Acquisition Officer shall hear the objections of all concerned and decide the matter as far as possible within three months from receipt of copy of the order. Objections may be filed before the Land Acquisition Officer by petitioners and notices shall also be issued to the affected persons for filing objections and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer shall decide the matter as far as possible within three months. A copy of this order may be sent directly to the Land Acquisition Officer."

(vi) After rejecting the objection under Section 5-A of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer vide his order dated 6-1-1998, order under Section 6 was passed by Collector on 31-3-1998, which was published in the Gazette on 15-5-1998 (as per order in W.P. No. 4176/1998 deemed to have been published on 31-3-1998).

(vii) Some of the petitioners in this' petition challenged the notification under Sections 5 and 6 vide W.P. No. 4176/1998 on the ground that notification under Section 6 was published beyond one year in contravention to the provisions contained in first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. That the acquisition is not for the avowed public purpose. Choice of land is not appropriate. That the Minister concern had ordered for location of Mandi at different place. That the acquisition is colourable exercise of power and suffers from malafide.

(viii) That W.P. No. 4176/1998 was dismissed on 10-4-2003. Observing in Paragraph 9 therein that".............The precise question is whether the date of the order is material or the date of publication in Official Gazette under Section 6 is determinative of the period of limitation under Second Part of the first proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. In other words, whether the other steps und