19. So far as the taking over of
possession without notice is concerned, we do
not find the said ground to be substantiated
by the records placed before the Court in
I.A. No.17. Notice to handover possession was
4 (2009) 10 SCC 689
issued on 10th March, 2006 and report of
service of such notice(s) was submitted to
the concerned authority on 16th March, 2006.
Thereafter, possession was taken on 17th
March, 2006. From the Possession
Certificates, which are also on record, we do
not find the contention of the land-owners
that taking over of such possession was
symbolic to be substantiated in any manner.
Consequently, the reliance placed on the
decision of this Court in Raghbir Singh
Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and others 5 is
not of any consequence.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot
agree with the conclusion of the High Court
that the impugned acquisition suffers from
any fundamental flaw or illegality which
would require the same to be struck down as
5 (2012) 1 SCC 792
has been done by the High Court in Writ
Petition No.196 of 2006 (impugned in Civil
Appeal No.6900/2009). Consequently, we allow
the appeal filed by the State, namely, Civil
Appeal No.6900 of 2009 and set aside the
order of the High Court dated 1st March, 2007
passed in Writ Petition No.196 of 2006. The
natural corollary of above would be to
dismiss Civil Appeal No.6901 of 2009 which we
hereby do.
21. As we have expressed no opinion on
the entitlement of the any of the parties to
JUDGMENTapportionment of the compensation no order
will be called for in this regard except that
compensation for the acquisition will now be
determined in accordance with the provisions
of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
22. The appeals as also all the pending
applications including the contempt petition
are disposed of in the above terms.