TANNU SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE problem of scarcity of newsprint paper in the country and catering of the need by importing it from foreign countries at a huge cost of foreign exchange led the Government of India to establish a newsprint paper project in the district of Moradabad through the National Newsprint and Paper Mills Limited (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Nepa') where for proceedings for acquisition of land situate in village Budhan- pur Atmali, Tehsil Moradabad Sadar and Villages Bathuva Khera Atmali, Phaciapura Gannu Mustakham, Manpur Dattaram, Gajhera Sai, Tehsil Thakur- dwara, District Moradabad, started. THE State Government through Notification No. 2834/XVIII-4-10 (PP) Dated September 8, 1989 (published in U.P. Gagette Extraordinary dated September 8, 1989) as also corrigendum Notification No. 3548/XVIII-4-10 (PP) dated November, 7, 1989 (published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated November 8, 1989) and Notification No. 2919/XVIII-4-10 (PP)-89 dated September 26, 1989 (published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated September 27, 1989) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') notified for general information that the land mentioned in Schedule thereto was urgenty needed for a public purpose, namely for establishment of a newsprint paper project for a planned industrial development of the district of Moradabad through Nepa. It was also stated in the said notification that the Governor being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act were applicable to the land, has directed under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act would not apply. THEse notifications were followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act through Notification No. 4101/XVIII-4-10 (PP)-89 and No. 4262/XVIII-4-10 (PP)-89 both dated January 6, 1990 (Published in U. P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated January 8, 1990) contained a direction under Section 7 of the Act to the Collector, Moradabad for taking steps for acquisition of the land also for possession under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act without there being any award under Section 11 of the Act.

(2.) BY means of Writ Nos. 3134, 3330, 3332, 3334, 3335, 3336, 3337. 3338, 5445, 5560 and 9042 of 1990, the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings relating to acquisition of their land The aforesaid notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act and declarations made under Section 6 of the Act are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petitions.

(3.) BY means of a supplementary counter affidavit filed in Writ No. 3330 of 1990, during the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel raissd an objection of preliminary nature regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, 1974 SC 2077 and Smt. Ratni Devi v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi, 1975 SC 1699, an argument was built up that the petitioners being guilty of laches cannot maintain the petition as they instead of challenging the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act and declarations made under Section 6 of the Act at the earliest opportunity, allowed the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act to proceed.