LORD MAHADEV TRUST Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-

(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition no. 165 of 2002 challenging the requisition on various grounds. The Hon ble High Court vide order dated 6-5-2003 directed the respondents either to hand over the possession to the petitioner within ten days or to acquire the same under the Land Acquisition Act. On 20-05-2003 the notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the Act), has been issued by the respondents and in the said notification the provisions contained under Section 17(4) of the Act have been invoked and the right to file objection as provided under Section 5(A) of the Act has been taken away. It is alleged by the petitioner that the impugned notification dated 20-5-2003 cannot be said to have been issued in the public interest as the opening of an office cannot be termed to be public interest as against the opening and running of an educational institution. It is further case of the petitioner that provisions contained under Section 17(4) of the Act are to be invoked in case of urgency and the declaration under Section 6 is to be made immediately after the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) Further the acquisition in the case at hand has been made on the dictates of Director Koshagar Evam Vitta Sevayen Uttaranchal as is evident from the letter dated 8-5-2003 and the acquisition cannot be said to be in public purpose. It is also alleged by the petitioner that since the respondents are already in possession of property in question since 11-5-2001, therefore, there was no occasion for invoking the urgency clause provided in Section 17(4) of the Act. Further despite invoking the urgency clause as provided under Section 17(4) of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 has been issued only on 16-6- 2003, while the notification under Section 4 was issued on 20-5-2003 and this aspect of the matter clearly shows that the provisions of Section 17(4) have been invoked in a most illegal and arbitrary manner only with a view to snatch away the right to object as provided under Section 5(A) of the Act and therefore the impugned exercise apart from being illegal also suffers from the vice of colorable exercise of power.