GAURI SHANKAR GAUR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) These 41 appeals and writ petitions raise common question of law for decision. Therefore, they are disposed of together. As the facts in C. A. No. 965/81 are sufficient to consider the controversy raised, the need to reiterate the facts in each case became redundant.

(3.) U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow, the second respondent framed Bhumi Vikas Evam Grahastham Yojana No. 1 Scheme for Rampur city to relieve the acute housing problems of that city and published the impugned notification in the Gazette on September 8, 15 and 22 of 1973 under S. 28(1) of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (Act 1 of 1966) amended as on that date, for short 'the Act' proposing to acquire 14 acres of land situated in civil area at an estimated cost of Rs. 25.21 lacs. Local publications too were made Notices under S. 29 inviting objections were served on the appellants and others on Sept. 20, 1973. On October 28, 1973 objections were filed. On July 31, 1976 notice was given of hearing objections on August 28, 1976. The Committee constituted in that behalf after hearing the objections; consideration thereof and rejection by proceedings dated Nov. 1, 1976, recommended to the Govt. to approve the scheme. The Govt. on June 25, 1977 approved it to the extent of 11 acres 27 cents and the notification was published on August 27, 1977 in the gazette as required under S. 32(1). Appeal under S. 32(2) filed before the Govt. too was rejected on July 14, 1978. On its receipt the Board issued notices on Feb. 1, 1979 under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for short, 'L. A. Act' to take possession of the lands on expiry of 15 days thereafter. The appellant questioned its legality under Art. 226 in the High Court. Similar notifications at different places were also subject matters of writ petitions raising diverse contentions. In Khadim Hussain v. State of U. P., AIR 1973 All 132, a Division Bench held that the first proviso of the L.A. Act did not restrict the right to issue notification under S. 32(4) of the Act, nor should it be done within a period of three years of the notification under S. 28(1) of the Act. In Riazuddinv. State of U.P., AIR 1973 All 240 the notification under S. 32 did not contain adequately the identity and the particulars of the land sought to be acquired as required in Ss. 4 and 6 of the L. A. Act, when its validity was questioned. The Division Bench held that Ss. 4 and 6 of L. A. Act had no application. In Satish Kumar Agarwal v. State of U. P., Civil Misc. Writ No. 1966 of 1979 dt. July 6,1979, another division Bench consisting of K. N. Singh, J., as he then was, and B. D. Agarwal, J., as he then was, negatived the contention that notification under S. 32 was to be issued within three years from the date of the notification under S. 28(1) and the first proviso to S. 6 of the Act had no application. Reliance was placed on Riazuddin's case. When similar question was again raised in Gauri Shanker v. State of U. P., Writ Petn. No. 1247 of 1976 dated 13-2-1981, a division bench consisting of Satish Chandra, C. J. and A. N. Verma, J. upheld the validity of the notification under S. 32(1) independently considered the provisions of the Act and also followed Kadim Hussain's case and reiterated the same view. Similar cases were dismissed which are subject matter of these appeals. When Doctors' Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. v. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, AIR 1984 All 234 came up for consideration before another Division Bench, on reference, the Full Bench considered the question in extenso and held that the first proviso to S. 6 of the L. A. Act is inapplicable to the proceedings under S. 28(1) or 32(1) of the Act. When an appeal was filed, this court in S.L.P. Nos. 92-94 of 1984 dated Nov. 13, 1984 upheld the Full Bench judgment and dismissed the petition. In Abdul Wahab v. State of U. P., Writ Petn. No. 37 of 1987, dt. August 9, 1988, another Division Bench following the Full Bench ratio held that S. 11A of L.A. Act had no application and award need not be made within one year as per 1984 Amendment Act. In S.L.P. No. 11310 of 1989, etc. another three judges bench confirmed the decision and dismissed the S.L.P. on November 6,1989. It would thus be clear that in interpreting the Act and the L.A. Act as incorporated therein a consistent and unbroken judicial flora has been nurturing in the State of U. P. that Ss. 4 and 6 of L.A. Act have no application to the proceedings under the Act and the bar of three years prescribed in first proviso to S. 6 too does not apply. In this case while granting leave, by order dated March 13, 1981 this Court restricted the appeal to the question whether the limitation of three years prescribed in first proviso to S. 6 of the L.A. Act would apply to the notification under Ss. 32(i) and 28(i) of the Act. Other cases and Writ petitions filed, thereafter, were tagged with it.