AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the Government wanted further time to file counter. However, since the writ
petition is of the year 1996 and more than 7 years had lapsed in the meantime, I do not find any justification to adjourn the case for filing counter.
In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings. Though several contentions have been raised, it is
unnecessary to notice all such contentions, as in my opinion, the contention relating to non-publication of notification in the locality, as required u/s
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, is sufficient to quash the proceedings.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been specifically averred that
Further the substance of the Sec. 4(1) Notification was not published in the locality and so the entire acquisition proceedings have become
illegal.
Such assertion having not been denied in any manner and in the absence of any material to indicate that in fact there has been publication in the
locality as required under the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquisition proceedings is liable to be quashed.
For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.