RAM GOPAL VARSHNEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 for recalling the order dated 16.3.2001 or for its arification as the said order had been passed recalling the earlier exparte order dated 28.1.1993.

(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this application are that the land belonging to the petitioners had been notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the "Act" on 22.6.1988. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.12.1988. Provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were also resorted to dispensing with the application of Section 5 -A of the Act. Land Acquisition proceedings were challenged by filing the writ petition on various grounds including non -publicity of the substance of notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. This Court vide order dated 28.3.1991 directed not to dispossess the petitioners, from the land in dispute. The matter came up for hearing on 28.1.1993. None appeared for the petitioners to press the petition. However, the Court considered it proper to dispose of the petition on merit. The Court took note of the facts that Section 4 notification was issued on 22.6.1988 and Section 6 declaration was made on 1.12.1988 and the writ petition was filed on 19.3.1991, i.e., after the expiry of more than two years after issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The possession of the land had been taken by the respondent -authorities on 9.1.1990 and award had also been made on 29.10.1991. In view of the fact that the petitioners had already been dispossessed and the award had also been made, the writ petition was filed at a belated stage. The same was dismissed. Subsequently, an application to recall the order dated 28.1.1993 was filed, which was decided in absence of the Counsel for the respondents wherein the statements was made by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the land belonging to the petitioners had been denotified, i.e., released from the land acquisition proceedings, therefore, the Court should recall the order dated 28.1.1993 and dismiss the petition as having become infructuous. The application was disposed of accordingly.

(3.) SHRI V.K. Barman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently opposed the application contending that the application has been filed at a belated stage and if the petitioners land had been denotified, this Court should not give any indulgence, whatsoever.