The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle that private interest stands subordinate to public good in land acquisition cases.

ORDER : – Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, looking to the issue involved in all these petitions, they are being heard concomitantly.

2. As in this batch of petitions similar relief is claimed, therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts of W. P. No. 4633/2021 are being taken up. At the outset, it is necessary to reproduce the relief clause as sought by the petitioner, which is as follows : –

“i) issue a Writ Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned award Dt. 5-3-2020 (ANNEXURE P-2) passed by respondent No. 3 along with all proceedings in respect of Khasra No. 152/2, total area measuring 1.23 Hectare situated at village Summer District Damoh, MP and; ii) grant any other relief/s, order/s, direction/s which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.”

3. Facts of the case in short are that the land belonging to the petitioner situates at Village Summer, District Damoh proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the ‘Act, 2013’). As per the petitioner, the proposed land is an agricultural land and is being cultivated by the forefathers and then the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the said land is only source of his livelihood. Respondent No. 5/Water Resources Department wanted to utilize the land for public purpose as they wanted to construct a canal under ‘Sitanagar Irrigation Scheme’. For the said purpose, not only the land of Village Summer but also the land of Villages Sitanagar, Bijori, Naringhgarh, Chainpura, Barkheda Nagar, Rangir, Madiya, Baroda Tahsil Pathria/Batigarh Distrcit Damoh was proposed to be acquired and in that regard, a notification under section 11 of the Act, 2013 was published in the State Gazette on 5-10-2018. The said notice was also published in the local newspapers viz Deshbandhu and New Rashtra Bhraman on 28-12-2018 and 29-12-2018.

(3.1) As per the petitioner, the respondents deliberately did not publish the said notice as per the requirement of section 11 of the Act, 2013 in a renowned newspaper, but got the same published in the newspapers which are not in circulation in the area where he resides. (3.2) As per the petitioner, the remedy available under section 15 of the Act, 2013 could not be availed because no such information about such hearing in which the petitioner could raise objection, was given to him. (3.3) As per the petitioner, copy of notification issued under section 19 of the Act, 2013 was also not given to him. The notification under section 19 was issued on 15-3-2019 in two newspapers i.e. Dainik Bhaskar and New Rashtra Bhraman on 13-6-2019, but those newspapers have no proper circulation in the locality where the petitioner resides. Further, as per the petitioner, section 21 notice though issued but not served upon him. In response to section 19 notice, the land owners raised their objections, but those were considered and rejected without any reason. (3.4) Thereafter, an award was passed on 5-3-2020 and without any intimation, all of a sudden, the respondents/Authority came to take possession of the agricultural land. (3.5) Hence, this petition has been filed pointing out such irregularities asking relief therein that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of Act, 2013 in respect of the land belonging to Khasra No. 152/2 total area 1.23 hectare be quashed.

4. The respondents have file their return seeking dismissal of the petition on the ground that after passing the award, writ petition is not maintainable. As per the respondents, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and by mentioning the incorrect facts in the petition, misled the Court saying that mandatory requirements were not followed. On the cont