SHRIMATI DAYA WATI Vs. COLLECTOR SAHARANPUR OPPOSITE PARTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two writ petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings taken by the Collector. Saharanpur, for acquiring land for purposes of extension and development of Har Ki Pairi at Hardwar and for widening the road in front of Har Ki Pairi, Hardwar. Two notifications, one dated 18th July, 1973, and the other dated 5th July, 1973, issued by the Collector of Saharanpur, were published in the Gazette dated 4th August, 1973, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings initiated under these two notifications have been impugned in these two writ petitions.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 6843 of 1973, there are 24 petitioners including Smt. Kamal Rani whose property which includes land and building, is sought to be acquired by the Collector for the purposes of extension and development of Har Ki Pairi. Smt. Dayawati and Smt Krishnawati are two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7423 of 1973. Their land and building standing thereon is sought to be acquired under the impugned notification dated 5th July, 1973, for the purpose of widening the road in front of Har Ki Pairi from Tonga Stand to J. K. House. The Gazette notifications on 4th August, 1973, invited objections from the affected persons under Section 5-A of the Act but the publication of the substance of the gazette notification in the locality was made on 38th and 29th August, 1973. Individual notices were also served on the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections which were considered and a report was submitted to the State Government under Section 5-A of the Act. Meanwhile the petitioners filed the present writ petitions challenging the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. During the pendency of the writ petitions, notifications under Section 6 were issued and published in the extraordinary U. P. Gazette in December and January.

(3.) THE question then arises, whether the aforesaid requirement was complied with in the instant case. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not give any necessary details. The learned standing counsel has, however, produced the original record of the land acquisition proceedings from the Collector's office. On a perusal of the records, I find that the two notifications in the instant case issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act were published in the U. P. Gazette dated 4th August, 1973. It appears that the Gazette could not be available to the Land Acquisition Officer, Saharanpur, till 22nd August, 1973. On that date he received copies of the Gazette, thereupon he directed that steps be taken for publication of notice in the locality. In pursuance to that direction notices giving the substance of the notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act were published in the locality on 28th and 29th August, 1973. In addition to the proclamation of the notice individual notices were also served on the petitioners. The notices served on the petitioners and published in the locality required the interested persons to file written objections within 21 days of the publication of the notifications dated 5th and 18th July, 1973. Thus the interested persons were required to file objections within 21 days of the publication of the gazette notification, namely, 4th August, 1973, although the period provided for filing objections had already expired. All the petitioners in the two petitions except Smt. Kamal Rani, however, filed objections. These objections were considered and report under Section 5-A was submitted to the Government. These facts would show that though Section 4 (1) of the Act was not strictly complied with, the petitioners' objections were considered under Section 5-A of the Act.