RAJBALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. C. Agarwal, J. These two petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenge the validity of the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 26th Sept. 1981, and 5th Oct, 1981, respectively. These notifications had been issued acquiring 219. 49 acres land of village Khalilabad, District Basti, for the purpose of planned Industrial Development of district Basti'' through U. P. State Industrial Corporation Limited. Kanpur.

(2.) CHALLENGING the validity of the aforesaid notifications learned Counsel for the petitioner first urged that as the purpose for which the acquisition was intended had not been clearly specified, the notifications were invalid. We do not agree with this submission. The notifications have clearly stated the purpose of acquisition, that is, the planned Industrial Development of district Basti. It was not necessary to mention in these notifications the various industries which were intended to be set up. It could not be possible at the time of issuing of the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 to specify area which would be assigned to each individual industrialist for setting up a particular industry in which he may be interested. The word "planned" has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as a scheme for accomplishing a purpose. Any thing which is antithesis of haphazard development amounts to planned development. Hence, the notifications gave indication of the purpose in sufficient detail, and, it is, therefore, not possible to hold that either the notifications under S. 4 or the notifications under S. 6 suffer from the defect of vagueness.

(3.) IN the instant case a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government stating that as the proceedings under S. 5a would have taken a long time to terminate, the State Government decided in public interest to dispense with S. 5a. It has been alleged in the counter-affidavit that the proceedings under S. 5a were likely to take years with the result that the purpose of planned industrial development would have frustrated, hence the State Government decided to eliminate the enquiry under S. 5a. There is evidence before us to show that the State Government had not only applied its mind to the urgency of the matter for which the land was intended to be acquired, but also to the question that the urgency was of such nature that even summary proceedings contemplated by S. 5a were required to be dispensed with. IN support of the averment that S. 5a was required to be dispensed with the counter- affidavit has further mentioned that entrepreneurs who were agreeable to start industries over the site in question were keen for obtaining possession of the lands immediately so that their finances were not held up. This was a relevant fact which could be bona fide taken into account by the State Government for coming to the conclusion about the dispensation of Section 5-A.