of handing over possession of disputed property has not yet come and thus the respondent No. 5 has not obtained possession because the proceedings before the land acquisition officer has not reached to the stage of Section 9 (1) or in any case the respondent No. 5 has not been directed to make payment of 80% amount and obtain possession. It is pleaded that respondents failed to pay 80% compensation amount as required under Section 17 of the Act 1894. It is also pleaded that the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity of hearing under Section 5(A) of the Act 1894. It is also stated that the opportunity of hearing was afforded to Sushil Bhatia on 01.07.2012 according to the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act 1894. It is pleaded that despite order passed in WPC No. 5794/2011 and WPC No. 5933/2011, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 01.04.2013. It is also stated that the Notification dated 08.08.2011 was issued with the approval of Commissioner, Raipur Division, who has been empowered in this regard by Notification dated 03.12.2009. It is further pleaded that according to the provisions of Section 79 of Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, within a period of 02 years, the State of Chhattisgarh ought to have adapted or modified the existing Rules or Notifications, but no such step was taken, therefore, the Notification issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 15.02.1999 cannot be restored after 10 years on 03.12.2009. It is also pleaded that the acquisition proceedings do not disclose any cogent reason for acquiring lands or invoking urgency clause.
