TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a house. Some other land owners, whose lands also were acquired for the vary purpose, did challenge the acquisition. A set of land owners challenged the acquisition at the outset and some others challenged the acquisition after the awards under Section 11 were declared. The challenge by both sets of land owners failed before this Court. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Company agreed to settle the matter with those land holders who had challenged the acquisition at the outset i.e. before the awards under Section 11 were declared. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 30th January 2009 observed that, the petitioners and the Company agree in principle that the assistance of skilled and professional mediators will assist the parties to arrive at a mutually advantageous negotiated settlement so that the Company's project is not held up. The petitioners in SLP [C] Nos. 1192, 1993 1994 of 2009 and the Company agree to appear before the Mediation Center of the Gujarat High Court on 05.02.2009 at 11 a.m without further notice. .... SLP [C] Nos. 1190, 1191 of 2009, 1976-1980/2009 and CC No. 1243/2009-These special leave petitions arising from writ petitions filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of the Act, and much before the award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed. So as to appreciate the distinction which sets apart the case of present petitioners, it is necessary to take into consideration the factual backdrop. It deserves to be noted that the Notification under section 4 of the Act, for acquisition of certain lands for expansion of the existing plant of earlier referred company was issued in June 2005 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in January 2006. It was at that early stage (when only aforesaid Notifications were issued and the award under Section 11 was yet not passed) that certain land owners (hereinafter referred to as the first group of land owners ) filed writ petitions in 2006 in this court. The writ petitions were registered as Special Civil Application Nos. 11730 of 2006, 11776 of 2006 and 12136 of 2006. While the said writ petitions were pending the award under Section 11 of the Act came to be passed in January 2008. After the award under Section 11 of Act was made, another group of certain other land owners (hereinafter referred to as the second group of land owners-writ petitioners) whose lands w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in SLP(C)Nos. 1192, 1193 and 1194 of 2009 arising out of SCA Nos. 12136 of 2006, 11730 of 2006 and 11776 of 2006 returnable within four weeks,list thereafter immediately. Status regarding possession till further orders........ (emphasis supplied) At this stage it deserves to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court also recorded, in the said order dated 30.01.2009, the willingness of the petitioners of said Special Leave Petitions to go for negotiated settlement and consent award. Having noted such willingness, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the second para of the said order, observed :- Learned Counsel for the respondent-Company stated that lands of the petitioners SLP (C) Nos. 1192, 1193 and 1194 of 2009 are all pockets in the midst of a large area and owners of the surrounding lands have agreed for a consent award. (emphasis supplied) Then, in the 3rd para of the said order dated 30.01.2009 the Hon'ble Apex Court further observed :- Having regard to the circumstances, the petitioners and the Company agree in principle that the assistance of skilled and professional mediators will assist the parties to arrive at a mutually advantageous negotiated settlement so that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not included and/or allowed to join the process. Taking note of the said vital distinction, another petition being Special Civil Application No. 8485 of 2009 has already been dismissed by order dated 25.09.2009 by Division Bench with following observations :- 8. It is required to be noted that the judgment dated 30.9.2008 was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in a group of 10 writ petitions which were filed after the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and in three writ petitions which were filed before the award. Non of those petitions were filed by the present petitioners. The petitioners of those three petitions had filed SLP(C) Nos. 1192, 1193 and 1194 of 2009. Hence, the observation in such a composite judgment of this Court cannot be invoked by the petitioners whose SLPs were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without making any observations which were made in SLP(C) Nos. 1192, 1193 and 1194 of 2009. After the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a settlement came to be arrived at between the company and the land-owners of Special Leave Petitions No.1192, 1193 and 1194 of 2009 and in that view of the matter the Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has expired long back. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioners are trying to have best of both worlds inasmuch as the persons/land-owners who did not object the acquisition proceedings or the award and the quantification of the compensation amount have now come forward only with a view to frustrating or circumventing the provisions (pertaining to period of limitation) of the Act and taking advantage of settlement, which course of action they consciously did not adopt earlier. The aforesaid aspects conclusively demonstrate that the comparison sought to be made is misconceived and not sustainable in law. The attempt of the petitioners ex-facie lacks in bon afides in asmuch as tempted by the settlement, and upon realizing that the limitation for initiating the proceedings under the Act has expired they have taken recourse to the Article 226 of the Constitution of India (claiming comparison, at this belated stage, with the persons who are party to the settlement) only with a view to indirectly rendering the said major obstacle ineffective. So far as the plea based on O-XLI R-33 is concerned, the said provision can be called in aid by him who was a party to the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
