ABDUL SATTAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the public notice of the substance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Act), was imperative when the hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with; and whether the purpose of construction of factories of the Handloom Complex was 'public purpose' and whether the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act have been dispensed with arbitrarily and mala fide; and whether without following the procedure provided under Part VII of the Act pertaining to acquisition of land for companies, can the acquisition be made, are the questions for our determination in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relied for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 3-8-81 and 16-10-81 (Annexures 1 and 2 respectively).

(2.) The portrayal of the essential, facts need not detain us, inasmuch as a number of agricultural plots situate in village Alipur Jijmana and Dhikauli were acquired by the aforesaid notificatins for the construction of factories of handloom complex by M/s. Cooperative Handloom Industrial Estate Limited, Meerut. The plots of petitioners, i.e. plot No. 590, area 2 bighas 17 biswansis belongs to petitioner No. 1 plot No. 588, area 2 bighas 17 biswansis belongs to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, plot No. 84 measuring 1 bigha 11 biswa and 15 biswansis belongs to petitioners 4 to 7, plot No. 91 measuring 3 bigha 9 biswa and 17 biswansis belogs to petitioners 8 to 10, plot Nos. 93-A and 93-B and 92 also belong to petitioners 8 to 10. Similarly plot No. 80 area 1 bigha 17 biswa and 5 biswansis belongs to petitioners 12 to 14 and 15, and plot No, 79 belongs to petitioner No. 11, whereas plot No. 128, area 1 bigha 10 biswa and 6 biswansis was the holding of petitioner No. 16. Plot Nos. 94 and 95 measuring 5 biswa and 5 biswansis and 6 biswa 13 biswansis respectively, were the holdings of petitioner No. 17, whereas plot No. 96 measuring 1 bigha 13 biswa and 7 biswansis, is the holding of petitioner No. 18. It is only after the service of notice under Section 9 of the Act on 10-1-82 that the petitioners came to know about the progress in the land acquisition proceedings. They made enquiries and came to know that on an application of the co-operative society on 24-8-78, the proceedings commenced, even though the first application was withdrawn and subsequent application was filed by the co-operative society on 19-2-80 before the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, and ultimately the impugned notices were issued.

(3.) Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that unless the procedure under Part VII was followed no acquisition could be made. Section 39 provides that in such matters where acquisition was for the Company, the previous consent of the State Government was necessary, and for that purpose an enquiry under Section 40 (Forty) of the Act ought to have been made. But this was not done, hence the acquisition was bad in law and the same was arbitrary and mala fide, and the acquisition was not for public purpose.