RAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court referred these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for hearing to a larger Bench as there was conflict in the two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the question as to whether land could be requisitioned under the U. P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948, for the purpose of constructing a drain.

(2.) The petitioners' land in all the three petitions was requisitioned under Section 3 of the U. P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of constructing a drain to facilitate the flow of flood water in the rural areas to avoid water logging causing damage to the crops and other property of the residents of the area. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the requisition proceedings by means of these petitions on the ground that under the provisions of the Act, the petitioners' land could be requisitioned for purpose which was temporary in nature and it could not be requisitioned for a purpose which was of a permanent nature. At the stage of initial hearing for admission of the petitions it was urged on behalf of the petitioners before the Division Bench that while the Act provides for requisition of land for a limited period, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides for acquisition of land in respect of a purpose of permanent nature, Since construction of drain is a work of permanent nature, the petitioners' land could not legally be requisitioned under the Act, instead it could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jangpal Singh v. Tahsildar. Etmadpur Spl. A. No. 818 of 1967, D/- 30-4-1970. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of another Division Bench in State of U. P. v. Thakurji 1975 All LJ 390. As there was conflict of decisions the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised the same contention before us placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jangpal Singh's case.

(3.) The Act was enacted to provide for the requisitioning of land to promote the improvement and development of agricultural and economic condition in rural area and to prescribe an expeditious procedure for determination of compensation to be paid to the affected persons. Section 3 lays down that if in the opinion of the Requisitioning Authority, it is necessary or expedient to do so for a public purpose, it may order requisition of any land by serving notice on the owner or occupier thereof, Public purpose as defined in Section 2 (2) means for and in connection with any of the following subjects, namely :