VED PRAKASH Vs. MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOUT 496 acres of land including that of the appellants were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). Notifications under sections 4 and 6 were issued for the purpose of planned development of district Ghaziabad (now district Gautam Budh Nagar) through NOIDA on 5.1.1991 and 7.1.1992 respectively. The appellants challenged those notifications by filing writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed. They filed appeals by Special Leave to this Court challenging the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. This Court in Om Prakash and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.1 disposed of those appeals giving certain directions. Although several contentions were raised before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, finally this Court has made observations and gave certain directions in paras 31 and 32, which read as under:-

(2.) PURSUANT to the said directions, the appellants made representations before the State government. The authority, after considering their representations, rejected the same by order dated 3.12.1999. Hence, the appellants approached the High Court for the second time by filing the writ petitions challenging the order of authorities dated 3.12.1999. The Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the contentions raised, dismissed the writ petitions on 25.2.2000. Hence, the appellants have approached this Court by filing these appeals questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 25.2.2000 made by the High Court in the writ petitions upholding the order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the authority.

(3.) SHRI Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 999-1001/2001 and 1004/ 2001 and Contempt Petition Nos. 274/ 1991 and 281/1991, specifically drew our attention to the discussion and conclusion of point no.1. To emphasize that acquisition proceedings were otherwise bad, but only in order not to disturb the scheme for the purpose of which large area was acquired, the directions as contained in para 31 were given. He further urged that the High Court committed an error in upholding the order dated 3.12.1999. issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who did not follow the specific directions of this Court; the High Court committed an error in passing the common judgment in number of writ petitions without discussing the individual cases on merits as the Secretary, Ministry of Industries had also committed the similar mistake in not deciding the cases individually on their own merits in spite of specific directions given by this Court in Om Prakash case (supra), and the order dated 6.9.1999 in Contempt Petition filed by I.M. Dawar and connected special leave petitions. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained in view of the fact that when there was a specific government policy as is evident from the letter dated 8.8.1997 that at the time of acquisition of any area the village abadi be left out from acquisition and if acquisition is very urgent, in that case equal development area of the acquired land shall be given to the owners of the land, whose land was sought to be acquired. He added that the order dated 3.12.1999, passed by the authority, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary and discriminatory in view of policy of the government of U.P. that no abadi land will be acquired. The High Court also failed to correct the said order. The spot inspection report made by the team of the officers of the Revenue Board clearly established that abadi existed at the lands of the appellants. He took us through the relevant documents placed on record in support of his submissions. The other learned counsel, appearing in other appeals, while adopting the arguments made by SHRI Shanti Bhushan, made few more submissions in relation to facts of their respective cases.