RAGUNATH HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.Heard Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Pratap,learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) COUNTER Affidavit and Rejoinder-Affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. Supplementary Affidavit and Supplementary COUNTER-Affidavit has also been filed.

(3.) SRI Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in response to the notice dated 22.4.2001 the application submitted by the petitioner only mention the area of 30 acres and no Khand was mentioned in the application. He submits that according to Clause(6) of notice, applicant has to apply only against one Khand. He submits that application of Manoj Kumar Singh which was against the same notice was for an area of of 5 acres 1251 and even if it is accepted the said application was for the same area the situation does not improve for the petitioner. The application of Smt.Firoj Begum and Ashfaq were against the different notice and were not in response to the notice dated 22.4.2001,hence they were not relevant. He submits that under Rule 72 of the Rules when there are less than three applications, the District Officer is obliged to issue a fresh notice in case he decide not to extend the period of seven days. He submits that the requirement of Rule 72(2) of the Rules for extension of further period of one week is "directory", Where as the requirement of issuing a fresh notice is "mandatory". He submits that District Officer did not commit any error in rejecting the application. The reliance has been placed by learned Standing Counsel on the judgment Smt. Bachahan Devi and another v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and another, 2008(1) Supreme 756.