GOPAL KISHORE VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a residential colony by the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'ADA'). THEre is two- strong attack on the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. THE first ground of challenge is that the proceedings are barred under section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. THE second ground, urged more vehemently than the first, is that the petitioners had, at the relevant point of time, become the owners of the disputed plot, viz., plot no. 67 measuring 10 Biswas and yet no notice was issued to them under section 9 (3) of the said Act. THE acquisition proceedings are thus invalid.

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to deal with these points, we may briefly set out a few relevant facts. The total area of land sought to be acquired was 127 Bighas 2 Biswas. Acquisition was for planned development, more precisely, a housing colony. The notification dated 17-2-1987 issued for this purpose under section 4 was published on 17-2-87. The notice also contained a direction under section 17 (4) of the Act that in view of the urgency of the matter, the provisions of section 5-A are being dispensed with. The notification under section 4 was followed by the notification dated 13-3-87 under section 6 published in the gazette of the same date containing the declaration that the land was required for a public purpose and the same was published in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality on the 3rd and 4th April, 1987. The public notice of the substance of the declaration under section 6 was caused to be made at convenient places in the locality in question on 13-4-87.

(3.) WE cannot agree. The argument ignores that the outer limit of two years under section 11-A has to be calculated from 'the date of the publication of the declaration.' The term 'date of the publication of the declaration' has been defined in sub-section (2) of section 6 as the last of the dates of the three modes of publication mentioned in that sub-section. These are, (1) publication of the notification in the gazette, (2) publication in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality, and (3) public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given by the Collector at convenient places in the said locality. Now in the present case the position is that though the declaration under section 6 was published in the gazette on 13-3-87, the same was published in two daily . newspapers on 3-4-87 and 4-4-87 while public notice of the substance of the declaration was caused to be made by the Collector in the locality only on 13-4-87. That being so, the award could be made upto 13-4-89. The award made on 31-3-89 was hence well within the outer limit of the prescribed time