SARJU PRASAD SAHA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On June 28, 1955 the State of U. P. notified under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 that plots Nos.1708, 1709 and 1710 admeasuring in the aggregate 3.21 acres situate at Mohalla Nai Bazar in the town of Basti were likely to be needed for a public purpose i.e., for waterworks supply scheme for the Basti Municipality". The appellant filed under S. 5-A of the Act objections against the intended acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer held an enquiry and submitted a report to the Government recommending that the land be exempted from acquisition. On March 7, 1956 the proceedings for acquisition were abandoned by the Government of U. P. On November 10, 1960, a fresh notification was issued under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the Government of U. P. intimating that an area out of plots Nos. 1708, 1709 and 1710 admeasuring 1.13 acres was likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz., water-works scheme for the Basti Municipality. Simultaneously therewith the Government of U.P. in purported exercise of powers under S. 17 (4) of the Act directed that the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the land notified. Later the Government of U. P. on November 29, 1960 notified under S. 6 of the Act that the Governor was satisfied that the land mentioned in the Schedule was needed for a public purpose and directed the Collector, Basti to take order for acquisition of the land. It was recited in the notification that the case being one of urgency, the Collector may under sub-ss. (1) and (1-A) of S. 17 of the Act, on the expiration of the notice mentioned in sub-s. (1) of S. 9, take possession of the land though no award under S.11 may have been made.

(2.) On December 12, 1960 the appellant petitioner the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ quashing the notifications, dated November 10, 1960 and November 29, 1960 and for a writ of mandamus directing the State of U. P., the Collector of Basti and the Land Acquisition Officer not to interfere with his possession over the land pursuant to the said notifications. Later by an application, dated January 4, 1961 the Municipal Board of Basti was impleaded as a party-respondent. In support of the petition the appellant contended that in respect of the land under acquisition, a notification under sub-s. (4) of S. 17 of the Act excluding the application of S. 5-A could not be issued, that S. 17 (4) was ultra vires the legislature in that it infringed the guarantee of equal protection of the laws under Art. 14 of the Constitution, that the Government of U. P. having abandoned the earlier proceedings for acquisition of the land, acquisition of the same land in 1960 by a fresh notification could not be enforced, for the abandonment of the earlier acquisition proceedings was the result of acceptance of the recommendation of the Acquisition Officer and that S.17(1-A) added by U. P. Act 22 of 1954 was inapplicable, as the acquisition was not made for any of the purposes contemplated by that clause. The High Court rejected all the contentions raised and dismissed the petition. With certificate granted by the High Court, the appellant has appealed.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has, beside certain other pleas which we will presently mention, sought to reagitate the questions submitted for the decision of the High Court except the plea that S.17 (4) of the Act infringes the equal protection clause of the Constitution.