SHARDA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the notice dated 6.3.2002 Annexure-5 to the petition and not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute as it is abadi land which is situated on Khasra Nos. 586 and 606a. It is further prayed that construction on the land in question may not be demolished.

(2.) The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 6.3.2002.

(3.) It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioners were the residents of Village Shadarpur Mauza Bhakhtawarpur district Gautam Budh Nagar since their forefathers. The impugned notice dated 6.3.2002 has been issued for acquisition of the abadi of the petitioners. It is also alleged that in the revenue records it has been recorded as abadi land vide Annexure-1 to the petition and it is also alleged that a notification was issued by the State Government on 28.11.2001 for acquisition of the land under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for development of industries by NOIDA. In this notification the acquisition of petitioner's abadi land has also been notified. True copy of the notification dated 28.11.2001 is Annexure-2 to the petition. The petitioners made representation dated 20.1.2001 praying that the aforesaid land of the petitioners be not acquired vide Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition. However, despite these representations the respondent No. 2 has issued notice dated 6.3.2002 for acquisition of the land and fixed the date of appearance of the petitioner for 22.3.2002 vide Annexure-5. The petitioners submitted their objection dated 21.3.2002 vide Annexure-G. It is alleged in para 9 of the petition that without giving opportunity to the petitioners and without going through their objection and without deciding it the respondents awarded the compensation on 23.3.2002 and distributed it amongst the land holders. The petitioners have alleged that they have not been given compensation and their objection was not considered.