2 All three writ petitions were heard together by the High Court.
While these writ petitions were pending, pursuant to an internal companymunication dated 14.11.2005 of which the Appellant had numbernotice, an Award was published on 27.9.2006, purportedly in companytinuity of the 1981 acquisition proceedings.
The Respondent State initiated acquisition proceedings in 1981 by Notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the L.A. Act, both dated 25.3.1981, invoking the urgency provisions companytained in Section 17.
On 17.11.2003, the Respondent State took steps to annul the second proceedings by attempting to rely on Section 48 with the objective to withdraw from the acquisition.
The Forest Officer also sought a direction restraining the Authorities from dispossessing the Forest Department from the land.
Possession of the land was taken by the Respondent State after almost five months on 20.8.1981.
The Appellant landowner challenged these proceedings by way of a writ petition.
A Public Interest Litigation also came to be filed by one Sunil Kumar Singh, a self proclaimed social activist, with the intent and purpose of protecting and preserving the forest.
Thereafter, proceedings were once again initiated by the Respondent State vide another Section 4 Notification dated 24.5.1995.
The Respondent State has submitted that a cheque was sent to the Appellant albeit bearing the wrong name.
The Appellant, on the other hand, companytends that upon its refusal to accept the companypensation, the Respondent State ought to have companyplied with Section 31 of the L.A. Act by depositing the amount with the Court, which it neglected to do.
A writ petition giving rise to CWJC No.15767 of 2004 was also filed by the Divisional Forest Officer challenging the action of the Respondent State in endeavouring to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings.
Subsequently, the Appellant filed another writ petition seeking the issuance of a direction companymanding the Respondent State to release the land in question and hand over its possession to the Appellant.
The land has subsequently been declared to be a Protected Forest as envisaged in Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as per Notification dated 4.9.1990.
The writ petition came to be allowed on 22.7.1998 and has subsequently attained finality.
This was followed by a Notification dated 17.8.1996 issued under the urgency provisions of Section 17, whereby Section 5A was yet again dispensed with.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 The Appeal before us involves an acquisition of land under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 L.A. Act for brevity .
The operation of Section 5A was simultaneously made inapplicable by resorting to Section 17 4 .
