LALIT KUMAR ARORA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large number of plots including plot no 67 admeasuring 0 788 hectares situated in village Rajpur Bangar pargana and District Mathura are subject matter of acquisition proceedings initiated by having issued notifications under section 4 (1) (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and under section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure 7 to the writ petition)- The petitioner Lalit Kumar Arora, who claims himself to be the purchaser of the said land from Sri Kishori Lal, recorded owner of the land, has filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings on various grounds enumerated by him in the writ petition but at the bar he has pressed only following grounds :- 1. Purpose of acquisition as indicated in the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) being planned bousing development in Mathura Vrindaban town, through Mathura Vrindaban Development Authority, the land under acquisition cannot be needed for the planned housing development in Mathura Vrindaban town as that is at the distance of 10 Km situated from the town of Mathura Brindaban. Consequently the acquisition proceedings at the instance of Mathura Vrindaban Development Authority, respondent no. 3 in respect of petitioner's land is wholly illegal;

(2.) DECLARATION issued under section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the Government, which has been published in the local news-paper and is filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition, has not been issued in the Form which is prescribed in the Manual of Government Orders as per Form II (R-D) being Form No. 168 as required by para 417 of the Manual of Government Orders, as such it is to be presumed that there was no application of mind by the Government while issuing the said declaration specially when there is nothing to suggest that the report submitted by the Collector under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was duly considered by the Government before making the declaration;

(3.) THE above observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case, inasmuch as rule 417 of the Manual Government Orders also contains guidelines issued by the Government for being followed by the concerned Government authorities as was done by the West Bengal Government in the above mentioned case. Thus strict non-compliance of such guidelines does not at all render the acquisition proceedings, or for that matter, the declaration issued under section 6 (1) of the Act illegal.