DHANNO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring the petitioners land, be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful user, occupation and possession of the land by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner claims that she is recorded owner of plot No. 37, khata No. 122, having an area of 3 bighas and 5 biswas in village Sadarpur, tehsil and pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now District Gautam Budha Nagar). The State Government issued notifications under Ss. 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring large number of plots including the plot in question. The notifications mentioned that the land is being acquired for a public purpose, namely, for planned industrial development in the district of Ghaziabad through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and as the Governor was of the opinion that the land was urgently required, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of S. 17 of the Act were invoked and the provisions of S. 5-A were dispensed with. It appears that after the notifications under Ss. 4(1) and 6 had been issued in the year 1994 and 1995, respectively, a notice dated 15-7-1997 was served upon the petitioner under S. 9 of the Act, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the plot and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred C.M. Writ Petition No. 31863 of 1997, wherein three reliefs were claimed, namely, (1) for quashing the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act (2) for quashing the notice dated 15-7-1997 served upon the petitioner under S. 9 of the Act, and (3) a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to consider the representation and request of the petitioner for excluding plot No. 37 of khata No. 122 of the petitioner from acquisition proceedings. The writ petition was finally disposed on 22-9-1997 with a direction that the representation which may be made by the petitioner to the Revenue Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow, for excluding her plot from the acquisition proceedings be decided. It is averred in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner made a representation on 6-10-1997 and, ultimately, the same was decided by the order dated 6-3-2000 and the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner then filed C.M. Writ Petition 28086 of 2000 for quashing the aforesaid order passed by the Revenue Secretary of the State Government. This writ petition was dismissed on 4-7-2000 on the finding that to grant exemption from acquisition was a matter within the domain of the Governments executive action and no interference was required in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 2-11-2001, which is the third writ petition.

(3.) Sri J.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petition, has challenged the acquisition proceedings on three grounds. The first ground is that the possession of the land has not been taken so far though urgeney provisions of S. 17 had been applied while issuing notifications under S. 4(1) and 6 of the Act. The second ground is that as the award has not been made within 2 years of the publication of the declaration under S. 6, the peroceedings for acquisition of the land have lapsed in view of the provisions of S. 11-A of the Act, and the third ground is that 80 perecent of the estimated amount of compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and, as such, there was breach of sub-sec. (3-A) of S. 17 of the Act.