NARENDRAJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by -

(2.) THESE two appeals by certificate from a common judgment of the High court of Allahabad arise out of certain land acquisition proceedings in the District of Rampur.

(3.) THE case being one of urgency the governor was further pleased under Ss. (1) of Section 17 of the Act to direct the Collector of Rampur, though no award under Section 11 has been made, on the expiration of the Notice mentioned in Ss. (1) of Section 9, to take possession of the land, being waste or arable land mentioned in the schedule for a public purpose. SCHEDULE <FRM>JUDGEMENT_125_1_1970Html2.htm</FRM> <PG>127</PG> THE petitioners-appellants before us filed writ petitions in the High court on 1/12/1960. THE appellant in Appeal No. 1192 of 1967 was the sole petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3274 of 1960 while his father, Ranjit Singh and two others, brothers of the petitioners were the applicants in Writ Petition No. 283 of 1961. THE two writ petitions contained common complaints. THE case of the petitioners was that it was the Maharaja of Dewas with whom the petitioners had certain litigation who was responsible for singling them out for the purported acquisition of their land for the rehabilitation of displaced families of East Pakistan. THE first ground put forward in both the petitions was that the notice under Section 4 of the Act was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act rendering the whole proceedings void. THE points urged in support of the applications were turned down by the learned Single Judge and a Special Appeal therefrom to a division bench met with no better fate. THE learned Judges of the division bench noted that the exact land which was required by the State government was not specified in the notification and that the petitioners had raised further objection that the notification under Section 4 was invalid because it had not been published at convenient places in the locality. THE division bench relied on certain observations of this court in Babu Barkya Thakur v. THE State of Bombay and Others to the effect that the notification under Section 4 was for the purpose of carrying on a preliminary investigation with a view to find out after necessary survey and levels, and if necessary, digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. According to the division bench there was no substance in the pleas on behalf of the petitioners and their appeals were therefore dismissed.