MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed for quashing of the notifications issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Both the writ petitions seek quashing of the same notifications and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The State Government issued a notification dated 20.5.1996 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring certain land in village Bhiwai, Pargana Shikohabad, District Firozabad for the purpose of construction of a market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sirsaganj in district Firozabad under a planned development scheme. This was followed by another notification dated 27.12.1997 under Section 6 of the Act. There is a recital in the notification under Section 4 that the Governor, being of the opinion that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable inasmuch as the land was urgently required for construction of market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sirsaganj in district Firozabad under a planned development scheme, and, that in view of the pressing urgency it was necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. A direction was issued under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply. The notification under Section 6 contained a direction to the Collector of Firozabad under sub-section (1) of Section 17 to take possession of the land on expiration of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 9 though no award under Section 11 had been made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Government bad acted illegally in exercising powers under Section 17(4) and in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Learned counsel has also urged that there was no material before the State Government to show that it was a case of extreme urgency wherein provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act may be applicable. It is urged that the construction of a market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sirsaganj, was not such a purpose which could be described as extremely urgent where the State Government could not wait for an enquiry as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act.