The petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P7, a notice issued by the third respondent under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The specific contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is that since Act 30 of 2013 has come into force with effect from 01.01.2014, issue of Ext.P7 on the same date is without any authority. It is also contented that, the respondents are not entitled to proceed with the acquisition proceedings under the Act in view of the fact that, the provisions thereof stand repeal with effect from 01.01.2014. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. The stand of the third respondent is that, the parties had given their consent to the acquisition and had also agreed on the price to be paid as compensation for the land to be acquired from each one of them. A District Level Purchase Committee ('DLPC' for W.P.(C). No. 22494 Of 2014 2 short) had negotiated with the land owners and had fixed Rs.1,50,000/- per cent as the land value to be paid to the respective owners. It is also pointed out that, under the new Act, the land value would be substantially less, Rs.87,950/- per cent.
3. Adv. P.B.Krishnan appears for the 4th respondent. According to the Counsel, since the parties had agreed to the price that was to be paid as compensation for the land acquired, their present stand retracting from their commitment cannot be countenanced. The counsel therefore, seeks the issue of appropriate directions holding them to the consent that they had initially given.
4. The Counsel for the writ petitioner responds to the above contentions by submitting that the petitioners have not given any consent as alleged by the respondents. Even if the compensation amount is substantially less under the new Act, they want to be paid compensation only under the new Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the apex court in Pune Municipal W.P.(C). No. 22494 Of 2014 3
Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014
(1) KLT 470 (SC)) and a Single Bench decision of this court dated 23.06.2014 in W.P.(C) No.5618/2014.
5. Heard. In view of the fact that, Act 30 of 2013 has been brought into force with effect from 01.01.2014 repealing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the issue of Ext.P7 on 01.01.2014 cannot be countenanced. The petitioners are claiming compensation under Act 30 of 2013, contenting that they had not executed any consent for negotiated purchase. Absolutely no material has been placed before me to justify a conclusion that the petitioners had executed any such consent as alleged. In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
6. This writ petition is therefore, allowed Ext.P7 is set aside. The respondents are directed to proceed with the acquisition, under Section 34 (1) of the Act 30 of 2013.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE sk //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JDUGE