PANCHU RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot No. 25/1 and plot No. 22 measuring 43 decimal and 20,5 decimal respectively situate at village Habibpura, Pargana Dehat Amanat. Tehsil and District Varanasi. The petitioner alleged that the plot originally belonged to one Gajadhar and upon his death the property was partitioned between his two sons, namely, Lakshmi Narain and Shiv Shanker. After the death of Lakshmi Narain his share devolved upon his widow Smt. Bhutani. The petitioner contended that he became the owner of the plot by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 24.1.1971 executed by Smt. Bhutani in his favour. It was further stated that after purchasing the aforesaid property the petitioner moved an application for mutation in his name. The co-sharer, Ram Kishore, son of Shiv Shanker filed an objection and the matter is still pending in the Revenue Court as well as in the Civil Court, on account of which the petitioner's name could not be mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner contended that on 24.3.2000 the staff and the employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 started measuring the disputed land. The petitioner made inquiries from the office of the District Magistrate and Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi and then came to know that the notification under Section 4 dated 19.11.1981 and the notification under Section 6, dated 30.11.1981 had been issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') for acquiring the land for a public purpose.

(2.) The petitioner contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to make the public announcement by beat of drum or by affixing a public notice in the locality after the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, and therefore, the petitioner was unaware of the land acquisition proceedings. It was contended that the non-compliance of the public announcement invalidated the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner further contended that the notification under Sections 4 and 6 had lapsed and the plot is liable to be reverted back to the petitioner in view of Section 11A of the Act since the award was not made within two years from the date of the publication of the declaration. It was asserted that after issuance of the notification under Section 17 (1) of the Act, the Collector failed to take possession of the acquired land nor any proceedings were initiated under Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Act and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed in view of Section 11A of the Act. The petitioner further submitted that other plot owners whose land had also been acquired under the aforesaid notifications had challenged the said notifications by means of various writ petitions, which were finally, decided in the year 1995 and even after the said decision the Collector took no steps to start the proceedings under Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Act, nor took possession of the land within two years from the date of the dismissal of the writ petitions and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed in view of Section 11A of the Act. In view of the assertions made by the petitioner, the petitioner in the present petition prayed that a mandamus be issued to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 directing them not to measure the land or prepare the map or take possession of the plot of the petitioner.

(3.) The Sate of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Varanasi have filed a counter-affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit it has been contended that the name of Smt. Bhutani does not figure in the revenue records nor her husband's name was ever recorded in the revenue records and only the name of one Kishore had been recorded as Bhumidhar of Plot No. 25/1. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that the notification under Section 4 (1) and (6) of the Act, was duly published in the gazette and public notice of substance was given at convenient places in the locality, as envisaged under the aforesaid section. It was also submitted that the notice under Section 9 was also given to the recorded tenure holders of the area as early as on 16.12.1982 after demarcation and survey of the land was made by the competent authority under Section 8 of the Act. It was further submitted that some of the tenure holders, who received the notice under Section 9 of the Act, had filed objections before the Collector, Varanasi. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents contended that several tenure holders filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, which were decided on various dates namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14885 of 1982, Atma Ram Dhaniya v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 10.9.1990; Writ Petition No. 15173 of 1982, Tuliya v. State, decided on 25.11.1997 Writ Petition No. 15175 of 1982. Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P.. decided on 25.11.1997; Writ Petition No. 1769 of 1982, Chandra Shekhar Pandey v. State of U.P., decided on 18.11.1997, Writ Petition No. 66 of 1983. Ram Kishore v. State of U.P., decided on 30.10.1995, which relates to the impugned plot in question. The respondents contended that in all the aforesaid writ petitions interim orders were passed by this Hon'ble Court restraining dispossession of the writ petitioners and, therefore, the possession of the land could not be taken inspite of the issuance of notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. It was further stated that the respondents came to now about the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions vide letter dated 8.5.2000 of the Law Officer of Varanasi Development Authority and thereafter steps were initiated for taking possession of the land on 9.5.2000 and the possession was handed over to the Varanasi Development Authority on 10.5.2000. The aforesaid paragraph Nos. 4, 9 an 10 of the counter-affidavit have not been specifically denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner admits that the revenue authorities failed to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records inspite of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Naib Tehsildar, Varanasi on account of litigation with the co-sharer. The petitioner in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder-affidavit has not denied that after issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, public notice was not made at convenient places in the locality nor has he denied that the notice under Section 9 was not given to the recorded tenure holders. The petitioner has also not denied that the respondents have taken possession of the land on 10.5.2000. The petitioner in paragraph 11 of the rejoinder-affidavit has not denied that various writ petitions were filed by other tenure holders including the co-sharer challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, which were dismissed on various dates by this High Court nor has denied that the State Government came to know about the dismissal of the writ petition vide letter dated 8.5.2000 of the Law Officer of Varanasi Development Authority.