This itself is enough to vitiate the whole acquisition proceeding and render the same invalid. There is no restriction or bar on the part of the appellant Society on carving out the size of the plots or the manner of allotment or in respect of construction over the same. Before the tribunal the case for the Federation and the Union was that the refusal of the Bank to take back the 150 workmen in question was a part of the concerted and deliberate plan adopted by the management of the Bank for victimising the President, the Vice-President, the General Secretary and Secretaries and Treasurer of the Federation and of the working committees of the different trade unions of workers and the members of the strike committees, and it showed that the sole object of the Bank in refusing to take back those employees was to teach a lesson to the Federation and -the Union and to penalise all active trade union workers who supported the cause of the employees.

It has not been proided that the concessions would be available for use of any raw materials (other than bamboo, hard woods, soft woods, reeds and rags) to the extent of at least 50% by weight of pulp in the manufacture of paper (with few exceptions) or paperboard. All these writ petitions were taken up analogously by the Full Bench and disposed of vide judgment dated 21. Even compensation was paid lawyers in Supreme Cour of Indiat such cases, the High Court, instead of quashing the Notifications in respect of those villages, chose to adopt the middle path in an endeavour to balance the equities of both sides.

6 Another change made is with regard to extending the scope of unconventional raw materials by paper mills for the purpose of duty concessions. Apart from the sales which were deemed to have taken place in Ratlam itself the goods were, as stated above, supplied to the customers in one of the following two ways. The goods were either sent from Ratlam through the post office by V. That is why the framers of the Act have required the appropriate Government to grant prior approval of any housing scheme presented by any cooperative society before the lands are acquired treating such requirement and acquisition for public purpose.

In spite of the repeated query, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Society could not point out or produce any order of the State Government under Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act granting prior approval and prescribing conditions and restrictions in respect of the use of the lands which were to be acquired for a public purpose. This is how the matters were placed before the Full Bench and by that time as many as 471 writ petitions had accumulated. When these petitions came up before another Division Bench it noticed the aforesaid two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches.

However, in respect of three villages, when it found that no development work had been carried out at all by the Authorities during the intervening period, the High Court chose to quash the Notifications including consequential actions and directed restoration of the land to the respective land owners. It is incumbent on the part of the appropriate Government while granting approval to examine different aspects of the matter so that it may serve the public interest and not the interest of few who can as well afford to acquire such lands by negotiation in open market.

According to us, the State Government has not granted the prior approval in terms of Section 3(f)(vi) of the Act to the housing scheme in question. As a sequel, spate of writ petitions came to be filed challenging the lands acquired not only by the notification dated 12-03-2008 but even by earlier notifications as well. The power under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act has been exercised for extraneous consideration and at the instance of the persons who had no role in the decision-making process - whether the acquisition of the lands in question shall be for a public purpose.

2011 with leading case known as Gajraj vs. Thus, it enhanced the provisional compensation and also directed allotment of developed Abadi land to the extent 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq. This led the said Division Bench to refer the matter to the larger Bench and orders dated 26-07-2011 were passed in this behalf. In other words, so long as the percentage by weight of pulp bamboo, hard woods, soft woods, reeds or rags is not more than 50%, the concessional rates of excise duty would apply.

Thus, all the above materials and the notifications clearly suggest that the Government itself distinguished between jute bags/gunny bags and rags and the exemption was being extended to paper made from old jute/gunny bags. This circumstance alone goes a long way to support the contention of the writ Petitioners that their lands have not been acquired in the normal course or for any public purpose. The Full Bench of the High Court has accepted the plea of the land holders that invocation of emergency clause contained in Section 17 of the Act was impermissible and unwarranted.

At the same time, the High Court also noticed that in respect of land of many villages, possession had already been taken and substantial development work carried out.