SARMUKH SINGH GREWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21/04/1977 of the allahabad High court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 4412 of 1976 whereby the High court has dismissed the said writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellants have challenged the validity of the notification dated 14/10/1976 issued under Section 4 (1 and Section 17 (4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as notification dated 15/10/1976 issued under Section 6 of the said Act, relating to 12.89 acres of arable land. The public purpose as indicated in the said notification dated 14/10/1976 was 'planned development in District Moradabad through the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial development Corporation'. Before the High court, the appellants had assailed the validity of the said acquisition proceedings on the ground that the acquisition was not for a public purpose. The writ petition was heard by a division bench of the High court (H. N. Seth and Mufti, JJ. ) and both the learned Judges have found that the impugned acquisition was for the purpose of setting of a paper mill and that it constitutes public purpose. The said contention was, therefore, negatived.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that in the impugned notification under Section 4 (1, the expression 'planned development' has been used and that in the absence of a scheme for development of the area, it could not be said that the land was used for a purpose indicated in the notification and in support of the said submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on certain observations of H. N. Seth, J. in the impugned judgment.

(3.) It appears that the High court was dealing with two writ petitions, i. e. , w. P. No. 4412 of 1976 and W. P. No. 4413 of 1976. The other Writ Petition No. 4413 of 1976 related to proceedings for acquisition of 4.38 acres of land which was other than waste or arable land. From the judgment of High court, we find that arguments with regard to planned development were addressed in W. P. No. 4413 of 1976 in the context of Ss. (1-A) of Section 17 of the Land acquisition Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby it has been prescribed that the power to take possession under Ss. (1 of Section 17 may also be exercised in the case of other than waste or arable land, where the land is acquired for or in connection with sanitary improvements of any kind or planned development. Mufti, J. held that the land was being acquired for 'planned development' and dismissed W. P. No. 4413 of 1976. H. N. Seth, J. took the contrary view and held that the land was not being acquired for planned development and Section 17 (1-A) could not be invoked and on that view allowed W. P. No. 4413 of 1976. The matter was referred to a third Judge (Shukia, J. ) who agreed with Mufti, J. and as a result, W. P. No. 4413 of 1976 was dismissed. We have been informed that the said decision has become final.