MANGAL SEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 26th March. 1969. the State Government issu ed a notification under Section 4 (1). Land Acquisition Act, notifying that the land mentioned in the schedule thereto was needed for public purposes. Plots Nos. 283. 284 and 285 along with several other plots of village Jamalpur Mafi were in cluded in this notification. In due course on 13th November, 1969, the State Gov ernment issued the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act in respect of the plots which were mentioned in the notification under Section 4. On 27th July. 1970 however, the State Govern ment issued a notification stating that the Governor is pleased to make the fol lowing amendments in the notification dated 13th November, 1969. The amend ments were the deletion of plot No. 283 and the reduction of the areas of plots Nos. 284 and 285 by one biswa each. The effect of this amendment was that the Section 6 notification stood amended by deletion of plot No. 283 therefrom and reducing the area of plots Nos. 284 and 285 by one biswa respectively. There after the State Government issued yet another notification on the very next day namely July 28. 1970, whereby it Was stated that in continuation of the notifi cation dated 26th March. 1969 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the Governor is pleased to declare under Section 6 of the Act that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for a public purpose and that under S. 17 of the said Act to direct the Collector of Aligarh to take possession of the land. The schedule mentioned 3 plots namely 283. 284 and 285. In regard to plots 284 and 285 only one biswa area was in cluded. Thus the position was that at first the Government excluded plot No. 283 and one biswa each of plots Nos. 284 and 285 from the notification under S. 6 issued in November, 1969 but on 28th July, 1970 they issued a fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act in respect of these plots.

(2.) THE appellant instituted a writ petition in this Court challenging the ear lier notification under Sections 4 and 6. Various grounds urged in support of that writ petition, however, did not find fav our with the learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the appellant filed the pre sent appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant applied for am endment of the writ petition by inclu sion of the notifications dated 27th and 28th July. 1970. After hearing learned counsel, we permitted the amendment.

(3.) IN Harihara Prasad v. Jagan-nadham, AIR 1955 Andhra 184 it was held that the mere withdrawal of a notifi cation under Section 4 does not amount to a decision on objections raised under Section 5-A in favour of the applicant whose land is sought to be acquired. The Government is entitled to reconsider its previous decision withdrawing the ear lier notification under Section 4 and re start acquisition proceedings with respect to the same land. This would show that even the withdrawal of a notification under Section 4 does not mean that the objections under Section 5-A have been upheld. The Government is free to re start the proceedings. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that exemption of some land from the notifi cation under Section 6 amounts to with drawal from the acquisition.