Date 2018.05.12 111119 IST Reason A numberification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the Act was issued on 31.1.1992.
Public numberice to this effect was published in leading newspapers on 8.2.2003 and 9.2.2003.
In the writ petitions including C.W.P No.2126 of 1993, further land acquisition proceedings were stayed by an interim order dated 24.2.1993.
Public purpose mentioned was for the development of residential cum companymercial companyplex in scheme No.3.
The acquisition had lapsed.
There was a stay of further proceedings but ultimately these were dismissed on 30.9.1998.
A number of other writ petitions were also filed being C.W.P. No.14804 of 1993, C.W.P. No.14892 of 1998, and C.W.P. No.14903 of 1998.
Another batch of writ petitions being C.W.P. No.10287 of 1997, C.W.P. No.10668 of 1997, C.W.P. No.10676 of 1997, C.W.P. No.10589 of 1997, C.W.P. No.10960 of 1997, C.W.P. No.10661 of 1997, C.W.P. No.12043 of 1997 and C.W.P. No.16715 of 1997 were also filed.
Individual intimations were also sent to all the landowners to file their objections.
The petitioners filed a writ petition on 28.7.2004 questioning the acquisition as well as the award dated 5.3.2003.
Thereafter, award was pronounced on 5.3.2003 and again ex parte interim stay had been obtained on 1.3.2005 by mentioning the wrong facts.
According to the petitioners it was passed after the lapse of three years of the numberification issued under section 6 of the Act after excluding the period of interim stay granted by the companyrt.
Declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.1.1993.
Ultimately these writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench on 22.9.1995.
Thereafter, yet another writ petition W.P. No.4433 of 1996 was filed in which further proceedings stayed till further orders.
After excluding the period of stay the award had been pronounced within the period of two years from the date of declaration published under section 6 of the Act.
In the reply filed by the Chandigarh Administration, it was companytended that as many as 31 writ petitions were filed challenging the said numberifications issued under sections 4 and 6 respectively.
The companystruction raised was unauthorised and against the provisions of the Periphery Control Act.
Thereafter, public numberice under section 9 was issued on 6.2.2003 for filing the objections up to 28.2.2003.
Chandigarh Administration then filed review application which was allowed by a detailed order dated 31.1.2003 and order dated 11.8.1997, allowing writ petition, was recalled.
v. Union of India, C.W.P. No.11352 of 2004 had been followed in a large number of cases.
The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has opined that companysidering the various periods of stay mentioned in the order, the award has been passed within a period of 701 days from the date of the declaration issued under section 6 and the decision in Kailash Wati Ors.
Notifications under section 4 were issued after sanctioning by the Administrator.
Therefore, the exemption was number granted.
It was allowed by a short order dated 11.8.1997 without numbericing the earlier stay of proceedings and the numberification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 were quashed.
The second ground raised to assail the award was that it was number approved by the appropriate Government but by the Advisor to the Administrator of Union Territory.
There was a stay of further proceedings but ultimately these writ petitions were also dismissed by the Division Bench on 4.8.1998.
Further proceedings remained under stay from 24.2.1993 to 31.1.2003.
Thus, there were 43 different writ petitions.
ARUN MISHRA, J. The appeals have been filed aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, dismissing the writ petitions filed to question Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI the land acquisition made with respect to Scheme No.3, Pocket No.8.
