Compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, and the estoppel of the petitioners from challenging the acquisition after participating in compensation and employment proceedings.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the notification P/1 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for shot “the Act”) on 9-5-2000 and declaration P/2 issued under section 6 of the Act, the invocation of section 17(1) for the acquisition of land for company, notice under section 9 and the award R-5/6 passed on 31-7-2002 be quashed.

2. Petitioners claim to be the Bhumiswamis of certain agricultural land situated at village Maddhepur, Tahsil Huzur, District-Rewa. Petitioners submit that the public purpose mentioned in section 3(f) of the Act excludes the acquisition of land for a company, the acquisition in question is for a private company J.P. Bela Cement Plant/respondent No. 5, thus, the same cannot be said to be a public purpose. The land has to be acquired as per Part VII of the Act.

3. It is further averred that J.P. Cement Ltd. moved an application before the revenue authorities for laying down railway line for a railway siding to enable them to transport cement from their plant to nearest railway station Turki on Satna-Rewa railway line. The notification P/1 was issued on 9-5-2000, public purpose was shown in column 6 of the notification as railway siding and railway line construction. It is further averred by the petitioners that invocation of section 17(1) in a case of Company and dispensation of the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act is illegal. Petitioners are still in possession of the land; there is gap of two years after issue of notification under section 4 and objections could be entertained under section 5-A and decided. There is special provision contained in section 39 of the Act which requires consent of the appropriate Government and agreement to be entered. Procedure for acquisition of land for Company was not adopted. Petitioners were served with a notice under section 9 writ petition was preferred. It is submitted that acquisition is illegal, mala-fide and colourable exercise of powers. By way of amendment, on objection being raised by the respondents that award has been passed, relief has been incorporated to quash the award dated 31-7-2002.

4. In the preliminary submissions filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 it is contended that two petitions challenging the same notifications were filed earlier before this Court, thus, third petition cannot be entertained. The first petition WP No. 6229/2000 was filed by Ram Kumar son of Ramayan Singh Patel who is duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Madhepur, Tahsil-Huzur, District-Rewa. The same was filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation; in that petition petitioner had filed representation moved by the villagers before the Collector, Rewa on 25-5-2000. Son of petitioner No. 1 Mahraniya namely, Lakhan Singh who is the brother of petitioner No. 2 had filed a representation. Petitioner No. 3 Girija Shankar has himself filed a representation therefore, the first writ petition filed by Sarpanch was also for and on behalf of present petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of vide order R/3 dated 29-11-2000 with a direction that petitioners and his co-villagers may make a fresh representation within two weeks from the date of the order which shall be considered by the State Government and thereafter pass reasoned order within a period of four weeks. Another Writ Petition No. 1605/2002 was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation by Sarpanch of Village Madhepur; this writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 4-4-2002 by a Division Bench of this Court in which this Court observed that petitioner can raise the objections before the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act instead of approaching this Court. Petitioners were aware of the factum of filing of previous writ petitions hence the present one deserves to be dismissed.

5. A detailed return has been filed by respondent No. 5 M/s J.P. Cement Ltd. In addition to taking aforesaid objections, it is contended that no f