(1.) AN order as well as notification both dated 11th December 1973 whereby a plot of the land belonging to the petitioner was requisitioned under Section 3 of the United Provinces Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, J 948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for construction of a road is sought to be quashed.
(2.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner's land was sought to be requisitioned for the construction of a road, the purpose for which the land was requisitioned, on the face of it could not be said to be of a temporary character and since the Act contemplated requisition for a public purpose of a temporary character alone, the impugned notification was ultra vires. A similar argument was raised before a Full Bench of this Court in R. P. Singh v. State of U. P. (1980 (6) ALR 409), and was repelled. It was inter alia, held that the Act does not impose any limitation on the power of the Requisitioning Authority by making any express or implied provision that the purpose for which the property may be requisitioned must be of a temporary character. In view of the decision in R. P. Singh's case (supra), we find ourselves unable to accept the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner urged that R P. Singh's case (supra) requires reconsideration.
(3.) IT was then urged that the notification was invalid in as much as the compensation which is payable under the Act is almost illusory. While elaborat ing this submission, it was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the Act was enacted at a point of time when the Government of India Act of 1935 was in force and the only Entry which conferred power on the provincial Government in this behalf was Entry No. 9 of List 3 of the 7th Schedule which read "Compulsory acquisition of land." According to counsel for the petitioner, since the provincial legislature had authority to enact only in regard to com pulsory acquisition of land the compensation which was to be given to person whose land was requisitioned under the Act should have been made payable on the same basis as under the Land Acquisition, Act. Since this was not so provided in the Act, the compensation payable thereunder was, on the face of it, illusory.