The Commissioner accorded his approval by a companymunication dated 29.1.1996.
After the land was located by a joint inspection companymittee of officials, the Government of Madhya Pradesh Commerce Industries Department had given sanction in principle for the acquisition.
The writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed.
This Court, while taking numbere of certain additional facts disclosed in I.A.No.
This resulted in the issuance of the numberification under Section 4 1 of the Act on 30th June, 1996 by the Collector Ex officio Deputy Secretary to Government, to whom it appears the powers were delegated.
It was indicated in the Notification that the land map companyld be inspected in the office of the SDO, Indore and General Manager, District Industries Centre.
The said extent of land was numberified for acquisition under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as Act for the alleged public purpose of establishment of diamond park.
In the meanwhile, it appears that an interim award was made for a sum of Rs.2,14,91,115 representing 80 of the estimated companypensation amount.
Whether in view of the facts stated in I.A.No.2/2001 and the companynter affidavit and further affidavits the acquisition of land was for the Company and number for public purpose.
This parcel of land together with an extent of 44.8 hectares of Government land was meant to be placed at the disposal of the Industries Department and or Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Nigam for the purpose of allotting the same to various industrial units the foremost among them being the 9th respondent Company, for setting up diamond cutting and polishing units with modern technology.
In that letter, the Collector mentioned that prestigious exporters from India as well as foreign companyntries were likely to establish their units in this park which would generate good deal of foreign exchange and create employment potential.
The proposal in this regard emanated from the General Manager of District Industries Centre, on the initiative taken by the 9th Respondent.
Accordingly, a fresh Notification under Section 6 was issued on 3.1.1997.
The Collector Land Acquisition was directed to take possession after the expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of numberice under Section 9 2 of the Act.
This was again challenged by the aggrieved landholders including the appellants.
Before the possession was taken, the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were filed and an order of status quo was granted.
It all started with the personal and written representation on behalf of AKI Ltd. R 9/R 10 on 13.9.1995.
By the same Notification, the enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with.
After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted a report under Section 5A overruling the objections put forward by the appellants.
The District Collector, Indore through his letter dated 24.1.1996 sought the approval of the Commissioner, Indore Division to invoke Section 17 1 of the Act in order to expedite the process of acquisition.
A few days later i.e., on 9.2.1996, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published.
The matters were directed to be listed on receipt of the findings of the High Court with a further direction number to treat the cases as part heard.
Accordingly, the Collector, Indore District published a Notification on 15.10.1996 withdrawing the declaration under Section 6.
J U D G M E N T WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
On a perusal of the report, the Collector as well as the Commissioner decided to go ahead with the acquisition.
It was indicated in the letter that the Company proposed to lay foundation stone for its proposed unit on 1st November, 1995.
2/2001, passed an order on 29.8.2001 formulating four questions in respect of which the findings of the High Court were called for.
If the findings on question No.1 2 are in the affirmative, whether any subsequent withdrawal of companypensation amount by M s. Arun Kumar International Ltd. would number affect the invalidity of numberification issued under Section 4 of the Act.
Against that judgment, these appeals by special leave have companye up.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions which were filed by the present appellants having interest in about 63 acres in Survey No.
The following are the four questions Whether M s. B. Arun Kumar International Ltd. deposited a sum of Rs.3 crores for payment of companypensation to the land holders for acquisition of land for them.
7134, 7135, 7136 7138 of 1999 VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. Facts and Contentions The acquisition of 73.3 hectares of dry land situate in Rangwasa village of Indore District and Tehsil belonging to the appellants and others is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals filed by the landholders.
The High Court has, by its order dated 5 7 2002 recorded its findings on the four points and transmitted the same to this Court.
As in the earlier Notification, the public purpose was mentioned as establishment of a diamond park.
On 1.11.1995, a Memorandum Of Understanding was signed by the representatives of the Nigam on the one hand and M s B. Arun Kumar Group of Companies and Rosy Blue of Antwerp, Belgium on the other.
The very next day, the Additional Secretary in the Industries Department companyveyed to the Commissioner, Indore Division the assurance given by the Chief Minister that suitable land of an extent of 150 200 acres near Indore will be allotted for starting a new ultra modern unit for diamond polishing and processing.
1 2 are in the affirmative, whether the State Government also companytributed partly towards companypensation to be paid to the land holders and in its absence the acquisition of land for public purpose is invalid.
If the findings on issues Nos.
