JABALPUR, India, June 13 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 12:

1. Considering the similitude of the controversy involved in both the aforesaid cases, they have been heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of WP No. 5244/2012 are being taken into consideration.

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-

I. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and declare the acquisition proceedings/Notification dated 24.10.1997 issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with respect to the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. more particularly given in the notification being Annexure P/1, in Village Bagaha, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, Satna to be null and void in the eyes of law and,

II. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus and direct the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to de-notify the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. more particularly given in the notification being Annexure P-1, of Village Bagaha, TehsilRaghurajnagar, Satna; and,

III. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass any such or the further order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

3. In short, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 sought acquisition of the private land in question belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of construction of LPG Tank, Bottling Plant and Administrative Building under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short Act of 1894). The total extent of land sought to be acquired was 40.271 hectares as per the notification dated 24.10.1997 (Annexure P/1).

4. The respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement under Section 41 of the Act with the respondent No. 4 to the effect that respondent No. 4 shall provide Employment to at least one person of the family of Farmers from whom land has been acquired. The said condition is reflected in the Notification dated 14.08.1998 (Annexure P/2).

5. It is submitted that thereafter the land in question was acquired as per the terms and conditions provided in the Notification dated 24.10.1997 and the compensation was also determined. The petitioners received the compensation. Thereafter, the petitioners came to know that the work at the land acquired has been stopped by the respondent No. 4 because of which the delay in granting employment by the respondent No.4 was caused. Therefore, the petitioners filed WP No. 3111/2001. It is submitted that other aggrieved persons also filed WP No. 1217/2002.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2013/WP/18984/WP_18984_2013_FinalOrder_12-05-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.