MD NAZIR KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL writ petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court have approached by way of these appeals. In the original writ petitions which were filed in the year 1984, notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were challenged on various grounds. It was pointed out that the land acquisition proceedings were started first against the father of the appellants/petitioners by way of a notification dated 12.1.1974. Initially the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was sought to be dispensed with and second Section 4(1) notification came to be passed and that notification was also withdrawn by the State Government, and ultimately after the enquiry the declaration under Section 6 came to be passed on 2.4.1976. It is also significant to note that it was pointed out in the writ petitions that the lands of 8 persons were withdrawn from the notification by the State Government on 26.4.1975. It was also pointed out that on 21.7.1977, the original landlord viz., Abdul Aziz Khan expired. It was then pointed out that on 28.3.1983 the lands of 21 persons were exempted. Thus out of the total extent of 3 hectares 24 acres, 50 acres of land in all was exempted from the acquisition proceedings. It was therefore prayed in W.P.No.2732 of 1984 that the appellants/petitioners who were the owners of Plot Nos.10,11,30 and 31 should also be given the same benefit as had been given firstly to 8 persons and thereafter to 21 persons, and a writ of mandamus therefore was sought for directing the State Government to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings in respect of these plots.

(2.) BY the second writ petition in W.P.No.2860 of 1984, the proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were generally challenged. The present Writ Appeal No.535 of 1994 is pertaining to the Writ Petition No.2732 of 1984, while the Writ Appeal No.534 of 1994 is in respect of Writ Petition No.2860 of 1984. This judgment shall govern both the writ appeals as both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court by a common order.

(3.) THE charges of mala fides cannot be generally made. THEy are to be very specific with the necessary details and against the named persons. THE general allegations of mala fides cannot entitle the appellants/petitioners to rely on the plea of mala fides. Very significantly such details are totally absent in the writ petitions filed by the appellants/petitioners. Even in the Writ Petition No.2732 of 1984, where the appellants/petitioners are claiming the similar treatment, the appellants have not given any reasons nor have they given any details as to for what reasons and in pursuance of which the presentation of the said land was withdrawn, from the acquisition proceedings. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in holding that there was no question of issuing any such direction in favour of the appellants to withdraw their lands also from the acquisition proceedings. In paragraph 6 of his order, the learned single Judge has dealt with that subject, and ultimately in paragraph 8, the learned single Judge has chosen to hold that the acts of mala fides have to be specifically attributed and that in the present writ petitions they were not so attributed. Ultimately the learned Judge relied on the decision reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay v. M/s. Godrej and Boyce , AIR 1987 SC 2421, to take a view that in case of the withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 48, the order of withdrawal need not be backed by reasons or opportunity of hearing to the land owners and the Government could not be compelled to acquire land in a particular place. THE learned Judge then took the view that though apparently there was no principle behind the withdrawals or release in favour of certain other persons, the entire land acquisition exercise could not be quashed.