9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-publication of the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Allegation of acquisition for profiteering by the Government. 3. Compliance with the provisions of Part-III of the Act regarding acquisition for a company. 4. Application of Government policy decision regarding restraint in the acquisition of agricultural land. 5. Allegation of discrimination in the acquisition process. Summary: 1. Non-publication of the substance of the notification u/s 4(1): The appellants contended that the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) was not published in the locality. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, provided evidence of publication through loud announcements and beating of empty tins, with reports documented in Roznamcha Vakyati. The Court found that the notification was indeed published, as evidenced by the objections filed by 157 landowners. Thus, the contention was rejected. 2. Allegation of acquisition for profiteering: The appellants argued that the acquisition was a profiteering venture by the Government, acquiring land at low prices and reselling at high profits. The Court noted that the land was acquired for development and industrialization, with HUDA making external developments before transferring the land to HSIDC. The Court found no evidence of profiteering, as the appellants failed to substantiate their claims with relevant facts and evidence. The contention was deemed devoid of merit. 3. Compliance with Part-III of the Act: The appellants claimed that the acquisition was for HSIDC, a 'company' u/s 3(e) of the Act, and thus invalid for non-compliance with Part-III provisions. The Court clarified that HUDA was the acquiring authority, not HSIDC, and the land was transferred to HSIDC for development purposes. The contention was rejected. 4. Application of Government policy decision: The petitioners argued that the Government did not apply its mind to its policy decision of exercising restraint in acquiring agricultural land. The Court held that the Government must balance the need for industrial development with agricultural needs. The vague allegation of non-application of mind was unsupported by material evidence and thus overruled. 5. Allegation of discrimination: The petitioners claimed discrimination as their land was acquired while others' land was not. The Court stated that the Government acquires land based on necessity and suitability for the public purpose. The contention was found to be without merit. Additional Directions: The Court directed that if any appellant or petitioner, rendered landless by the acquisition, applies for land allotment, HSIDC should consider the application with priority, provided conditions for allotment are met and plots are available. Additionally, the appellants were allowed to make a representation regarding the exemption of land comprising a temple, Piaou, and Dharamshala from acquisition. Conclusion: All appeals and writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
