SURAI BHAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a. suit for perma nent injunction to restrain the Execu tive Engineer. Tube Well Division, Bulandshahr and the Special Land Ac quisition Officer. Meerut from interfer ing with their .possession and use of the plots of land in suit and from taking possession of the same. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the Bhumidhars of the plots in suit. The defendants were, however representing that they had acquired the said land for the pur poses of State Tube Well No. 114 Hapur Group Service Road. The plaintiffs con tended that no valid acquisition pro ceedings had been taken in respect of the said land. No notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisi tion Act had been published nor any notice for acquisition had been served on them. As the defendants were threa tening to interfere with the plaintiffs possession the suit for the aforesaid re liefs was filed. The defendants contest ed the suit contending that the Khasra Nos. 970. 850 and 849 had been acquired for the public purpose of State Tube Well No. 114. Hapur Group Service Road. The said acquisition had been made in accordance with law and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been duly published. It was also contended that the plaintiffs had no cause of action for the suit.

(2.) THE trial court found that the acquisition proceedings were not in ac cordance with the law and were ultra vires. It also held that the plaintiffs had the cause of action to file the suit. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit. Against the said decision the de fendants filed an appeal. The appellate court below found that the land was legally acquired for public purpose. It also, held that the suit was not bad for want of notice under Section 80. Civil Procedure Code. It accordingly allow ed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY in the notification issued tinder sub-clause (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3rd April, 1963. the name of the pargana was not correctly mentioned. The num bers of the plots to be acquired were also not mentioned therein. A note was, however, appended below the said noti fication that the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the Collec tor, Meerut. It is by now a settled law that a notification Issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. which does not comply with the essential re quirements of that provision of law, must be held to be bad. In the case of BahoriLal v. L. A. Officer. 1969 All LJ 813 = (AIR 1970 All 414) a Full Bench of this Court held that:-