MATBAR SINGH Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION (REQUISITION) OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is liable to be dismissed on a short ground. It is based on suppression of a material fact. The petition was filed on the allegation that without taking recourse to the proceedings under the relevant law for acquisition or requisition of the disputed land, the respondents are trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner and to construct a canal running over their land in dispute. In the counter -affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents these allegations have been categorically denied. It has been asserted that Tahsildar under the powers vested in him under Section 3 of the U.P. Rural Development Act, 1948 had initiated proceedings for requisitioning the land under the said Act on 23 -4 -1979 for constructing a canal. It is further stated that a notice dated 3 -4 -1979 was issued to the petitioners under the aforesaid Act but he did not file any objection. The petitioners were fully aware of these proceedings and in spite of this they wrongly alleged that the respondents were attempting to dig the canal without' recourse to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or any law for requisitioning the land.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that these counter -affidavits wore filed in various miscellaneous applications and not in the main petition. The argument is misconceived. The material that has been brought on the record by the respondents indisputably shows that the proceedings for requisitioning the land have been duly taken for the construction of a canal. It is immaterial whether the material comes in the shape of affidavits in the applications or in the main petition. In any case, we see an ground for doubting the version which has come in the shape of affidavits filed in the applications. There is, in our opinion, ample material on the record that the requisition proceedings have been initiated in regard to the land in dispute even before the filling of the petition - -In any case, after the above counter -affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondent, the petition filed on application for amendment of his petition in which a new ground was sought to be added, namely, that the requisition was for permanent purpose and, therefore, unauthorised in law. This argument again is no longer available to, the petitioner in view of the settled legal position obtaining on the subject. This Court has repeatedly ruled in a series of decisions that the land can be requisitioned under the aforesaid Act for temporary as well as for permanent purpose. See the decision of the Full Bench in : AIR 1980 All p. 250 which was followed in : AIR 1984 All 262. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court first in, 1968 SC 244 and again, 1984 SC 866.