Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1103 (JK)

Shankar Dass v. State

2017-12-30

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
ORDER : 1. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration with regard to validity of the proceeding initiated for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. The petitioners in OWP No. 797/2012 are owners of land bearing Khasra Nos. 59, 130 min, 143 min, 143 min, 190, 190, 187 measuring 18 Kanal 10 Marlas, 4 kanal 5 marlas 8 Sarsai, 28 kanal 5 marlas, 6 kanal 19 marla 4 sarsai, 5 kanal 15 marlas 8 sarsai and 12 marlas, respectively - total 82 kanal 8 marlas 2 sarsai of Kundrorian, Tehsil and District Reasi, as also some of their Shamlat in Khasra No. 185, measuring 8 kanal 10 Marlas of the same village. Similarly, the petitioners in OWP No. 1351/2012 are the owners of land admeasuring 12 marlas, whereas the petitioners in OWP No. 678/2012 are owners of land admeasuring 4 kanals. The petitioners in OWP No. 589/2017 are owners of land bearing Khasra No. 139 and 142 min admeasuring 5 marlas and 12 marlas respectively. For the facility of reference, facts from OWP No. 797/2012 are being referred to. 3. The Collector, Land Acquisition issued notice under Section 4(1) of the Act on 14.05.1999 by which land admeasuring 422 Kanals and 12½ marlas situated at Village Kundrorian, Tehsil and District Reasi was notified for acquisition under the Act for construction of the New Bus Stand and approach road at Katra. In the aforesaid notification, the land of the petitioners was also included. Thereafter, fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 14.11.2009. Thereupon, the petitioners filed objections to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Collector by an order dated 29.09.2010 without considering the objections of the petitioners proceeded to issue notification under Section 9 and 9A of the Act which was published in State Times on 23.10.2010 and the urgency clause under Section 17-A of the Act was also invoked. It is the case of the respondents that on 23.10.2010, they took the possession of the land in question. It is the case of the respondents that on 23.10.2010, they took the possession of the land in question. When the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi accompanied by the Collector entered the land of the petitioners, the petitioners approached this Court by filing OWP No. 1367/2010. The learned Single Judge by order dated 07.09.2011 quashed the proceeding for acquisition. Learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of the judgment inter-alia held that decision taken by the State Government on the report of the Collector shall be binding on the petitioners. However, the respondents were granted the liberty to proceed from the stage of Section 4(1) of the Act and to strictly adhere to the mandate contained in Section 5-A(2) of the Act. However, it was also observed that the observations made in the order shall not prevent the respondents in taking recourse to urgency clause, i.e. Section 17-A of the Act, if so required. Being aggrieved, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by an order dated 23.04.2012 set aside the observations made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the decision taken by the State Government on the recommendations of the Collector shall be binding on the petitioners. Accordingly, the order was modified and the appeal was disposed of. 4. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioners filed the objections before the Collector and submitted an application for supply of documents. However, it is the case of the petitioners that neither the documents were supplied to them nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to them. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Reasi prepared the report under Section 5-A of the Act on 24.12.2011 and sent it to the competent authority. Thereafter by an order dated 15.03.2012, the State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, Land Acquisition issued notifications under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act. The petitioners filed objections to the notifications under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act on 26.04.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the writ petitions on 28.05.2012. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents sought for during the inquiry by the petitioners were neither supplied nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The so called inquiry under Section 5-A(2) of the Act was an empty formality. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the writ petitions on 28.05.2012. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents sought for during the inquiry by the petitioners were neither supplied nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The so called inquiry under Section 5-A(2) of the Act was an empty formality. While inviting the attention of this Court to the communication dated 05.06.2007 sent by the Deputy Commissioner, it is pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner in its communication has stated that only 200 kanals of land was required for construction of the Bus Stand, whereas land admeasuring 422 Kanals and 12½ marlas was notified for the purpose of acquisition of land. It is also submitted that map prepared in respect of the land which is sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Act does not accord with the Master Plan and the notification under Section 6 of the Act suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as glaring discrepancies exist between the Master Plan and map, which has been prepared for acquisition of the land. It is also submitted that Government has failed to record any satisfaction for invocation of urgency clause and the market value of the land has not been determined and there is no basis for invocation of urgency clause in the facts of the case. It is also urged that size and shape of the Bus Stand in not in conformity with the Master Plan. It is also pointed out that as per the Master Plan, the area which is earmarked for the purpose of Bus Stand is 1270 ft. x 920 ft. It is also submitted that affidavit which has been filed in support of preliminary objections is not filed by a person from the indenting department and in the notification which was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act initially in the year 1998, the land of the petitioners was not included. However, in the subsequent notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was issued on 14.11.2009, the land of the petitioners has been included. It is further submitted that doctrine of eminent domain is not unfettered and the petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation package and the respondents being the welfare State ought to have adverted its consideration to the issue of rehabilitation of the petitioners. It is further submitted that doctrine of eminent domain is not unfettered and the petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation package and the respondents being the welfare State ought to have adverted its consideration to the issue of rehabilitation of the petitioners. It is also submitted that amount of compensation has not been determined and even the amount of 80 per cent is not deposited by the indenting department with the Collector, Land Acquisition. Therefore, the invocation of urgency clause is in the facts and circumstances, is bad in law. It is also submitted that amount of compensation was neither tendered to the petitioners nor was received by them. It is also submitted that even though in notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, Khasra No. 185 was included, the yet the same was not included in the notification under Section 9 of the Act. It is also submitted that in view of Section 11(B) of the Act, the proceedings have lapsed as the respondents have failed to pass an award within a period of two years and there was no stay with regard to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in respect of petitioners in OWP No. 1351/2012 has raised similar issues and has stated that initially the land of the petitioners in OWP No. 1351/2012 admeasuring 9 marlas was sought to be acquired. However, in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was issued subsequently, only land admeasuring 3 marlas has been notified for acquisition. It is further submitted that in case the aforesaid land is acquired, the petitioners would be rendered landless. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has adopted the remaining submissions in case of petitioners in OWP No. 1351/2012. In case of the petitioners in OWP No. 678/2012, while adopting the submissions made in OWP No. 797/2012, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners were neither a party in the first round of litigation nor have received the amount of compensation. It is submitted that petitioners are only the owners of four kanals of land and no explanation has been offered by the respondents as to why the land is being acquired in excess for the purpose of construction of the Bus Stand. It is submitted that petitioners are only the owners of four kanals of land and no explanation has been offered by the respondents as to why the land is being acquired in excess for the purpose of construction of the Bus Stand. Learned counsel for the petitioners in OWP No. 589/2017 has adopted the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in OWP No. 797/2012. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that the order passed by Collector has to be treated as an administrative order and the order has to contain brief reasons indicating application of mind. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioners that the land of the petitioners not acquired for public purpose nor the same suffers from the vice of mala-fides. In compliance of the orders passed this Court, learned Advocate General has produced the record for perusal of this Court and has pointed out that the petitioners were given an opportunity of being heard on 27.09.2011 and 29.09.2011, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that either no enquiry was held or no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them is sans substance. Learned Advocate General has taken this Court through the report submitted by the Collector. It is also argued that as per the Master Plan, 200 kanals of land plus the land for approach road was required. It is further submitted that as per the measurement prevalent in Katra, one kanal comprised of 13 marlas. It is also submitted that the report submitted by the Collector was dealt with by the State Government. It is fairly submitted by the learned Advocate General that 80 per cent of the amount of compensation is yet to be paid to the petitioners and the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and the respondents shall take possession of the land in question only after payment of compensation of 80 per cent. It is further submitted that affidavit annexed with the preliminary objections has been filed on the basis of the record. It is further submitted that affidavit annexed with the preliminary objections has been filed on the basis of the record. It is also submitted that provisions of Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act have been complied with and the issue with regard to rehabilitation is in the realm of policy and in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, they can take recourse to the remedy prescribed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also argued that even assuming that notices under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act were improperly published then also no prejudice was caused to the petitioners as they had filed objections and were heard and provisions of Section 11-B of the Act have no application to the fact situation of the case as a Bench of this Court had passed an ad interim order of status quo and, therefore, the respondents did not proceed with the land acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that the land of the petitioners sought to be acquired has been notified in the notification under Section 4 as well as Section 6 of the Act. It is further submitted that notices under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act were issued to the petitioners which were duly received by them. However, demarcation could not be carried out on account of ad interim order of status quo by this Court. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases Sooraram Pratap Reddy and Others vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 552 , Woman's Education Trust and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2013 SC 2488 , Union of India and Others vs. Shiv Raj and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2242 , Mohan Singh Gill and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 345 and Laxmi Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2015) 10 SCC 241 . 8. 8. By way of rejoinder, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to paragraphs 10, 15 and 18 in OWP No. 797/2012, whereas paragraphs 3 and 7 in OWP No. 589/2017 and paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 in OWP No. 679/2012 in support of his submissions that the allegations of mala-fides have been pleaded in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petitions and the persons who have been impleaded in personal capacity have not denied the allegations made against them by filing objections. It is also submitted that affidavit sworn in support of objections is vague and there is distinction between declaration of law and directions of the Court. It is argued that direction issued by a Court is inter se binding between the parties. It is also submitted that Lek Raj has neither received compensation, however, on misinterpretation of the order passed by Division Bench, he was not allowed to file objections. It is further submitted that in OWP No. 589/2017, eight marlas have been notified in the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It is also submitted that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has not been published as provided in law as neither there was beating of drums nor notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Newspapers. It is also submitted that no record has been produced to show the rate of market value in Katra Town. It is further submitted that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in a Newspaper, namely, Journey Line which in fact not a newspaper. It is further submitted that information supplied to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, the petitioners have been apprised that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been published on 02.12.2011. It is also urged that the record produced by the respondents is fabricated and the order dated 27.09.2011 as well as order dated 29.09.2011 only show that the objections which are filed on behalf of petitioners are being sent for consideration before the State Government and there has been no adjudication of the objections. It is also urged that the record produced by the respondents is fabricated and the order dated 27.09.2011 as well as order dated 29.09.2011 only show that the objections which are filed on behalf of petitioners are being sent for consideration before the State Government and there has been no adjudication of the objections. It is further submitted that no record has been produced with regard to demarcation of the land in question and even though in OWP No. 589/2017, number of representations were submitted for demarcation of the land, yet the same was not done and there is no record with regard to standardization of 200 kanals by the intending department. It is also argued that no satisfaction has been recorded by any authority with regard to validity of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the amount of 80 per cent of the compensation which has been determined is illusory and capricious. It is also urged that marking is required to be done by a Panel which may include either the petitioners or their representatives. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Holistic approach is required for interpreting the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which must be read in its entirety and the provisions must meet the test of right to hold the property which is a fundamental right in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. [See: SAIL vs. Sutni Sangam, (2009) 16 SCC 1 ]. The State undoubtedly has the power of eminent domain. However, the aforesaid power is subject to reasonable restrictions. The State Government in acquiring the land of a private person exercises its power of eminent domain which envisages that expropriation of one's property is permissible, if it is in public interest and reasonable amount of compensation as provided in the Statute is paid to the owner thereof. Before exercising of power of eminent domain, the law must provide for opportunity of hearing against the proposed acquisition. Even in absence of a specific provision to that effect, general law requires raising of objections by affording an opportunity of hearing to the owners of the property. The aforesaid provisions are expressly incorporated in J and K State Land Acquisition Act. Even in absence of a specific provision to that effect, general law requires raising of objections by affording an opportunity of hearing to the owners of the property. The aforesaid provisions are expressly incorporated in J and K State Land Acquisition Act. It is equally well settled legal proposition that officers of the State Government while exercising the power of eminent domain are required to take into account the legislative intent behind providing the procedural safeguards and some benefits as such acquisition ought not to be frustrated by inaction or omission on the part of officers of the State Government. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Essco Fabs (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (2) SCC 377 and Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 (9) SCC 354 . 10. It is equally well settled legal proposition that Section 5-A(2) of the Act incorporates the rule of principles of natural justice and provides for affording an opportunity to an objector to make an endeavor to convince the Collector that his land is not required for public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act or there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same. Section 5-A(2) of the Act also makes it mandatory for the Collector to submit a report to the appropriate government containing his recommendations on objections together with the records of the proceeding held by him so that government may take appropriate action on the objections. [See: Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210 ]. It is well settled legal proposition that on the recommendations sent by the Collector, the Government must apply its mind before issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act. [See: Woman's Education Trust and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2013 SC 2488 ]. The recommendations of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act must reflect objective application of mind to entire record including objections raised by landowner. [See: Union of India and Others vs. Shiv Raj and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2242 ]. [See: Woman's Education Trust and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2013 SC 2488 ]. The recommendations of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act must reflect objective application of mind to entire record including objections raised by landowner. [See: Union of India and Others vs. Shiv Raj and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2242 ]. While considering the scope and ambit of Section 5-A of the Act, the Supreme Court has held that every person likely to be adversely affected by a decision must be granted meaningful opportunity of being heard and Section 5-A of the Act also mandates that the person who heard and considered the objections can alone decide them and that too by a speaking and reasoned order. [See: Laxmi Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2015) 10 SCC 241 ] 11. The scope of interference with the proceeding initiated by the State for acquisition of the Act for a public purpose is also well defined. It has been held that if for proper development, the land is sought to be acquired, such action cannot be said to be illegal, unlawful or colourable exercise of power. The Development of infrastructure is legal and a legitimate public purpose for exercising the power of eminent domain and normally, the Court will not interfere with the Government's discretion in determining the nature and purpose of acquisition except where such power is exercised mala-fide or for collateral purpose or action is dehors the Act, irrational or otherwise unreasonable or purpose is actually “no public purpose” at all and fraud on the statute is apparent. Except the aforesaid grounds, the Court will not substitute its own judgment in place of that of the Government and will interfere only when purported public use is palpably without reasonable foundation. [See: Sooraram Pratap Reddy vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, (2008) 9 SCC 553] While dealing with scope of Judicial Review pertaining to land acquisition matters, it has been reiterated that it is not for the Court to decide as to which particular land and to what extent it was suitable for acquisition but it is for the Government to decide. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh Gill and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 345 . 12. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh Gill and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 345 . 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case in hand may be seen. In the instant case, initially a notification was issued on 23.09.2010 under Section 4(1) of the Act and thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and notices under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act were issued on 29.09.2010. The aforesaid notifications were subject matter of challenge in earlier round of litigation in a bunch of writ petitions headed by OWP No. 1239/2010 which was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.09.2011 and it was held that the proceedings qua the owners/interested persons who have not filed any objections and have accepted the amount of compensation shall be final and shall not be opened. However, the objections of the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation shall be considered by the respondents while adhering to the mandate of Section 5-A(2) of the Act and it was further provided that the observations made shall not prevent the respondents from taking recourse for urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act, if so required. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge was subject matter of challenge in a bunch of LPA headed by LPAOW No. 162/2011 by which the order passed by the learned Single Judge was modified on 23.04.2012 and the observations made by learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of the judgment that after hearing the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation in proceedings under Section 5-A of the action and the decision taken on the recommendations by the State Government shall be binding on the petitioners was quashed, as the same was not in accordance with law, to the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge was modified. 13. In compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court on 23.04.2012, notices for hearing were issued to the petitioners on 16.09.2011 who had already filed the objections and they were required to remain present. The petitioners were required to remain present on 27.09.2011 and 29.09.2011. 13. In compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court on 23.04.2012, notices for hearing were issued to the petitioners on 16.09.2011 who had already filed the objections and they were required to remain present. The petitioners were required to remain present on 27.09.2011 and 29.09.2011. The order sheets dated 27.09.2011 and 29.09.2011 read as under: 27.09.2011: File has been put up. Jatinder Baskhi, Neelam Bakshi attended the office and they were heard in the light of objections filed by them with regard to acquisition of land for New Bus Stand Katra. Their statements were also recorded and read over to them and they were asked that their statements and objections will be submitted to the Government for further necessary action. Sd/- (Collector) And Sd/- (Jatinder Bakshi) 29.09.2011: File has been put up. Shankar Dass S/O Sh. Sant Ram, Sukhchain Singh, Balwant Singh, Karnail Singh Ss/O Sh. Sansar Chand attended the office and presented their written objection under section 5 A(2) of the Act duly signed by them. They were heard in the light of objections submitted by them. Above written objections were also signed by Vijay Kumar and Ranjeet Singh Ss/O Sh. Sansar Chand. The objections were with regard to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act pertaining to acquisition of land for New Bus Stand Katra at village Kundrorian. They presented their written statements to the Collector who intimated them that their objections alongwith their statements will be submitted to the Government for further necessary action in the matter. Sd/- (Collector) And Sd/- (Shankar Dass and Others) 14. From perusal of the aforesaid order-sheet, it is evident that the objections preferred by the petitioners were considered and opportunity of hearing was also afforded to them. The original record bears the signatures of the petitioners also. Thereafter, the Collector submitted his report to the State Government dated 24.12.2011. In the aforesaid report, it was inter-alia stated that after receipt of objections of the land owners including the petitioners, all the land owners were heard at the time of filing of their objections. In the report, it was held as follows: “Katra is a town, which is on the global map now having great significance with regard to Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine as well as the tourist destination, where about 9 million people/yatris are visit the Shrine annually. In the report, it was held as follows: “Katra is a town, which is on the global map now having great significance with regard to Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine as well as the tourist destination, where about 9 million people/yatris are visit the Shrine annually. And, therefore, keeping in view the public purpose and general interest of the citizens, the construction of new bus stand is quite essential and cannot be deferred with. Hence, objections pertaining to the withdrawal of said Notification are not tenable. Moreover, the Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu, in PIL No. 878/1999 dated 23.05.2002 has also been pleased to hold that the public purpose pertaining to the Construction of a Bus Stand is essential (Copy of the Court order is enclosed as Annexure “A”). In this view of the matter there remains no doubt about urgent necessity of construction of New Bus Stand in larger interest of the general public at Katra. Regarding the unwillingness of the land owners/interested persons is also not tenable under the State Land Acquisition Act, keeping in view, the important general public purpose and interest. The other major issue in their objections raised by few interested person pertaining to the determination of compensation of the land to the extent of Rs. One crore per kanal. It is appropriate to mentioned here that the assessment of the compensation was made after taking into account all factors laid down in Section 23 of the Act and other factors like the report of the field agency regarding market value of land, stamp duty rates of the area issued by the Divisional Commissioner Jammu and previous Awards issued for village Kundrorian from time to time and factors like location, kind of soil etc of the land under acquisition. The other plea taken by the land owners/interested persons pertains to the so called defective Katra Master Plan-2021. It is appropriate to mention here that Katra Master Plan-2021 has been issued for Katra town, vide SRO No. 399 dated 23.11.2017 by the Housing and Urban Development Department of Jammu and Kashmir Government after taking all factors in account. The Master Plans are drafted and drawn by the experts Town Planners after taking into account all relevant factors. Hence no doubt can be expressed over the deficiency of Master Plan issued by Govt. for Katra town. The Master Plans are drafted and drawn by the experts Town Planners after taking into account all relevant factors. Hence no doubt can be expressed over the deficiency of Master Plan issued by Govt. for Katra town. It is also pertinent to mention here that land being taken up for acquisition already stands earmarked for the purpose of Construction of Bus Stand and that way no violation of Master Plan stands committed by way acquisition of said land for Construction of New Bus Stand and approach road at village Kundrorian. The another plea of the land owners/interested persons is that NOC from concerned MLA before starting the acquisition has not been obtained. It may be mentioned here that Act contains no specific provision for such NOC particularly in the matter of such important acquisition need for public interest.” 15. Thus from perusal of report submitted by the Collector, it is evident that Collector has applied his mind and has dealt with the objections raised by the petitioners and has also indicated the reasons. The Collector cannot be expected to act like a judicial officer and to pass orders like a judicial officer. Thereafter, the objections were forwarded to the State Government and the recommendations of the Collector were accepted by the State Government and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was accordingly issued. Thus, till the stage of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, no fault can be found with the proceeding. However, it is fairly submitted by learned Advocate General that though the notice under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act were prepared, but the same could not be served on the petitioners on account of ad interim order of status quo passed by this Court and 80 per cent of the amount of compensation has also not been given to the petitioners. 16. Reverting to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, it is pertinent to mention here that the contention of the petitioners that they were not given an opportunity of hearing cannot be accepted as the order sheet indicates that their objections were considered by the Collector, Land Acquisition by assigning reasons and they were given opportunity of being heard. It is also pertinent to note that admittedly, the land in question is being acquired for the purpose of construction of New Bus Stand which is a public purpose. It is also pertinent to note that admittedly, the land in question is being acquired for the purpose of construction of New Bus Stand which is a public purpose. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh Gill and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 345 has held that it is not for the Court to decide to which particular land and to what extent it was suitable for acquisition but it is for the Government to decide, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that excess land is being acquired cannot be examined by this Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that since the petitioners have already been afforded an opportunity of being heard, therefore, even if, the urgency clause is invoked by the respondents for taking possession from the petitioners, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, as the petitioners have already been heard and their objections have been considered. Since a bench of this Court had granted ad interim order of status quo, therefore, the respondents did not proceed with the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the submission that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11(B) of the Act also does not deserve acceptance. The petitioners have already filed objections in pursuance of notice under Section 5-A of the Act and have been heard, therefore, the challenge to the validity of the notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be entertained at this stage of the proceeding as no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. Besides that, even though petitioners had challenged validity of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the first round of litigation, yet the same not quashed. It is a well settled law that individual interest must give way to public interest and in the facts of the case, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference of this Court with regard to exercise of power by the respondents of eminent domain which has admittedly been exercised for public purpose i.e. for construction of New Bus Stand at Katra. 17. 17. In view of preceding analysis, these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the competent authority shall issue notice under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act and shall adhere to the prayer of the petitioners for demarcation of the land in question and thereafter shall proceed to acquire the land in question, in accordance with law. Needless to state that possession of the land shall be taken from the petitioners only after payment of 80 per cent of amount of compensation which shall be determined as per the market value of the land by the Collector, Land Acquisition. It is also directed that in case Government feels at any stage of proceeding that excess land has been acquired, it shall be at liberty to de-notify the same. 18. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of along with connected MPs.