- (1.)Petitioners, who are land-owners and are residents of Village Bujbuja and Dokaria situated in Gram Post Dokaria, District Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni, have filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition of land being undertaken by respondent No.4, for the purpose of setting up a 660x3 Mega Watt Thermal Power Station in the District of Katni. Particulars of the land held by the petitioners and other details are mentioned in the body of the petition and, therefore, it is not reproduced in this order.
Challenge is made to the acquisition initiated and the memorandum of understanding entered into between the State Government and respondent No.4 Company in the matter of acquisition. According to the petitioners, in Gram Bujbuja, land measuring 237.22 Hectares is being acquired; whereas in Village Dokariya land measuring 24.04 Hectares is being acquired. Petitioners claim to be permanent residents of the area in question and it is stated that initially a memorandum of understanding was entered into between the State Government and respondent No.4 Company on 24.11.2009, for setting up of a Thermal Power Plant in District Betul, but subsequently vide Annexure P/1, a second memorandum of understanding was executed on 24.11.2009, whereby the Thermal Power Plant was being established in the District of Katni. It is further stated that for the purpose of establishment of the Power Plant in District Katni, total 593.64 Hectares of land is being acquired, out of which 107.02 Hectares is Government Land and 486.62 Hectares is private land, belonging to the petitioners and various other persons, situated in the villages as indicated hereinabove. It is pointed out that an application Annexure P/2 was submitted by the representative of the Company in question to the Collector, Katni on 4.10.2010, alongwith the list of private land and government land annexed as Annexure P/3, to the said application. On the same being done, the Collector forwarded the matter to the Tehsildar, Vijayraghavgarh, who vide letter dated 11.10.2010 directed the Revenue Inspector to submit a report on the nine points as are indicated in the letter Annexure P/4. The Collector accordingly registered a Revenue Case bearing No.01/A-19/2010-11, on 5.10.2010 and the proceeding for acquisition was initiated. It is stated that the Collector received the report and thereafter the Additional Collector on 19.11.2010 vide Annexure P/6, directed the Deputy Director of Agriculture to also submit his report. Accordingly, a report Annexure P/7 has been submitted on 27.11.2010, and another report was submitted by the Tehsildar, Vijayraghavgarh on 4.11.2010, vide Annexure P/8. Thereafter, the matter was proceeded with and the Deputy Director, Agriculture also submitted his report, which was forwarded to the Collector vide Annexure P/10, on 14.12.2010. Based on all these material, the Collector prepared his final report Annexure P/11 on 19.1.2011, which was forwarded to the State Government and on the basis of the report of the Collector, the matter was placed before the Land Acquisition Committee on 22.2.2011, which granted its approval to the acquisition proceedings and the revenue authorities vide Notification dated 11.3.2011 Annexure P/12, gave permission as required under law and thereafter the agreement was executed between the State Government and the Company on 8.7.2011, vide Annexure P/13. It is pointed out that report was also called for from the Forest Department and on 28.3.2011, the Forest Department communicated to the authorities that the land in question is not within the forest or core area, but it is about 2 Kms away from buffer zone of Bandhavgarh National Park. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Vijayraghavgarh is said to have issued advertisement inviting objections with regard to the allotment of government land and certain objections with regard to this allotment was submitted by the villagers and the Gram Sabha. Interalia contending that without taking note of these objections and in an arbitrary manner the impugned action is taken and a final Notification under section 9(1) of the Act has been issued on 18.7.2011 vide Annexure P/25. This writ petition has been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings.

(2.)Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner, took me through the memorandum of agreement entered into initially between the State Government and the Company in question; the letter Annexure P/2 written by the Company to the Collector, Katni seeking allocation of land, by pointing out that efforts to purchase the land from the land owners have not yielded fruitful result; thereafter he referred to the report submitted by the Company; action taken by the Revenue Authorities and the SDO; and, the final report prepared by the Collector and emphasized that merely on the basis of the report submitted by the Company, without conducting any proper inquiry, without application of mind, in a very casual manner the verbatim report submitted by the Company is considered by the Revenue Authorities and finally by the Collector and in a mechanical manner the permission is granted. Accordingly contending that no proper inquiry in the matter is conducted as required under section 5-A of the Act or under section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act, Shri Rusia submits that the action taken in the manner in a mechanical way by the Collector is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter took me through the provisions of Section 4, Section 5-A; and, section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and submitted that without conducting any inquiry and without deciding the objection of the aggrieved persons under section 5-A directly the Notification is issued under section 6, without following the procedure contemplated under section 5-A. By taking me through various documents, it was tried to be emphasized by Shri Rusia, vehemently that the entire statutory procedure contemplated under section 5-A has been given a go-by and the action is taken without complying with the requirement of section 5- A. That apart, it is stated that no public purpose is involved in the matter of acquisition. Referring to the definition of 'public purpose' as contained in section 3(f) and the agreement in question, wherein liberty is granted to the Company to sell the electricity and only 5% of the power generated is to be used for government purpose, learned counsel argued that the requirement of law has not been complied with.
(3.)That apart, it is pointed out by Shri Vivek Rusia that respondents in the return have stated that action is taken under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, but the procedure contemplated under Chapter VII has not been followed. Accordingly, it is his case that the entire action taken in the matter is not proper, without application of mind and without taking note of the requirement of law, particularly the requirement of section 5-A, therefore, the entire action taken is unsustainable.