SARJU PRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and has come to us as a result of a reference made by Mr. Justice Dwivedi.

(2.) There are three plots of land bearing Nos. 1708, 1709 and 1710 situated in Mohalla Nal Bazar in the town of Basti within the limits of the Municipal Board of that town. According to the petitioner plot No. 1710 contains the 'Asthan' of Sri Karwa Baba and is on that account a place of pilgrimage.' There is a Shiv Asthan also on the plot adjacent to an old well. The petitioner is constructing a 'dharamshala' near the 'Asthan' for the convenience of the pilgrims visiting the place. On the 28th of June 1955 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the acquisition of the land of these plots. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the proposal to acquire the land. The objection was enquired into by the Land Acquisition Officer who submitted a report to the Government recommending that the objection was well founded. The petitioner alleges that as a result of the report the acquisition proceedings were dropped and the notification issued under Section 4 was cancelled. In connection with the Water Works Scheme for the' town, the Municipal Board of Basti got a tube-well sunk on a part of the land to which the petitioner objected. After the land acquisition proceedings were dropped the petitioner proceeded with the construction of his 'dharamshala' which is still incomplete. On the 10th of November 1960 a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the Government. This time the Government proposed to acquire only a part of the land in respect of which the previous notification bad been issued but this time along with the notification under Section 4 of the Act the Government also issued a notification under Section 17 (4) of the Act directing that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the acquisition. This was followed by a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on the 29th of November 1960. This notification contained a notification under Sections 17 (1) and 17 (1-A) of the Act. This time the purpose for which the land was being acquired was mentioned in the notification as completion of the Water Supply Scheme of old Basti. The petitioner challenges the validity of the acquisition proceedings and prays that the notifications dated the 10th of November 1960 and the 29th of November 1960 be quashed by a writ of certiorari. A writ of

(3.) When the petition first came up for disposal before Mr. Justice Dwivedi reliance in support of the first contention was placed on the case of Gur Dayal v. State of U. P., AIR 1960 All 564. It was, however pointed out that there was an earlier decision in S. V. S. Mahaswami v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 All 127 which was in conflict with the decision in Gur Dayal's case, AIR 1960 All 564. The learned Judge thought that it was necessary to resolve the conflict and, therefore, referred the case to a larger Bench.