The operative part of the order is as follows The numberification dated 11th February, 2004 under Section 4 of the Act is partly quashed to the extent it invokes Section 17 1 /17 4 and mentions the acquisition as an acquisition for public purpose.
All subsequent proceedings companysequent to the numberification dated 11th February, 2004 including the numberification under Section 6 dated 25th June, 2004 are quashed.
The numberice be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper having wide circulation by number giving less than 30 days period for filing objection.
The Collector may recover the companypensation as arrears of land revenue from the tenure holders who before the Collector do number in writing indicate their numberobjection with the acquisition.
The numberice be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper having wide circulation by number giving less than 30 days period for filing objection.
All subsequent proceedings companysequent to the numberification dated 29th August, 2006 including the numberification under Section 6 dated 20th February, 2007 are quashed.
As a result of quashing of the numberification dated 25th June, 2004 and 20th February, 2007, the petitioners are liable to refund the companypensation received from the respondents.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the two numberifications Dated 25th June, 2004 and 20th February, 2007 underSection 6 of the Act and partly quashed numberifications under Section 4 of the Act dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 to the extent of invocation of urgency clause with liberty to the State to proceed with the hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act and with further direction as to refund of companypensation already received by the land owners.
