of the petitioner on the said land, at the same time, conceding that an area of 0-21-50 Ha.R. was acquired, under the award dated 22 April, 2015. It is clear that such assertion was not raised earlier. However, what is interesting is that the real claim of the petitioner as argued today is to claim compensation which the petitioner states that he should receive for the stone crushing equipment and the shed, as before us, it is a vehement submission on behalf of the petitioner that a valuation is required to be undertaken of such machinery and shed, so that the petitioner can be compensated of such movable property, as such equipment and shed would be required to be removed from the acquired land. It is thus clear that the petitioner is not disputing that the portion of land admeasuring 0-21 R as demarcated in the survey as also marked in the plan actually stood acquired and was under the land acquisition proceedings and subject matter of the award dated 22 April, 2015. Thus, to continue to operate a stone crusher plant on a land which does not belong to the petitioner cannot be said to be an authorized activity, so as to not justify a notice under section 55(1) of the MRTP Act. The primary concern of the petitioner, however, is merely on compensation for such equipment/shed. It is, on such premise, that the petitioner has approached this Court in assailing the impugned notice issued by the CIDCO under Section 55(1) of the MRTP Act.
