VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification under Sec. 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 28/30th August, 1989. In both these petitions, the facts are similar and the same question of law is involved and, as such, both .these petitions are being decided by a common judgment. The parties are also agreed that Writ Petition No.3314 of 1990, Vinod Kumar v. State of U. P., may be taken as the leading case.

(2.) In Writ No.3314 of 1990, the petitioners are the owners of plots Nos.66, 67, 89 and 90, situate in village Gulistanpur, tahsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. In Writ No.5541 of 1990, the petitioners are the owners of plots Nos.34, 35,.36, 37, 45, 48, 49, 63, 64 and 65, situate in the same village. The petitioners have also challenged the notification issued under S.4 of the Act in respect of these plots only.

(3.) Writ Petition No.3314 of 1990 was filed on 12th February, 1990. Sri Sandip Mukerji accepted notice on behalf of the U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation, respondents Nos.2 and 3, (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.S.I.D.C.). Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Sandip Mukerje were granted time to file a counter-affidavit each and the petition was directed to be listed on 20th March, 1990. It was also made clear that, if necessary, the petition itself shall be disposed of on that date. On 20th March, 1990, no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel for the U.P.S.I.D.C. were again granted three weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit and the petition was directed to be listed for admission on 30th April, 1990. In the meantime, in view of the urgency of the matter, an application was made for summoning of the record of the Land Acquisition Officer relating to the land in question so that the matter could be heard on 30th April, 1990. On this application, an order was passed directing the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter-affidavit within the time granted by this Court. It was further directed that the learned Standing Counsel shall produce the file of the Land Acquisition Officer relating to the land in question on 30th April, 199O. On 30th April, 1990, in spite of the time granted by this Court, no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of any of the respondents. Consequently, on 30th April, 1990, another order was passed granting one more opportunity to the respondents to file the counter-affidavit and the petition was directed to be listed for hearing, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, on 11th May, 1990.