MANORAMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions revolving around one and the same controversy viz. challenging the validity of the two sets of notifications published one after another under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') in respect of the same land, amply demonstrate that tenure-holders of land sought to be acquired under the Act, for howsoever laudable and urgent purpose, zealously guard their right to land, no more constitutional but legal only, leaving no stone unturned in thwarting the acquisition proceedings and thereby giving rise to hunderd per cent litigation. It is for the legislature to devise such a method with the legal framework for making acqusition lesser painful and disadvantageous as to please the tenure-holders to readily part with their land for the purposes, conducive to the growth and development of the nation without creating legal hurdles. The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Samiti for brevity sake) has been struggling hard right from 1984 for having a neet sub-market at Kandhla, district Musaffarnagar, no more a town in oblivion, situate in the agricultural belt of the western Uttar Pradesh known for agricultural productivity, that success has eluded it all these years on account of prolonged and uncertain course of legal battle.

(2.) The facts as succinctly slated are that petitioners are tenure-holders of plot No. 1133, the toal area of which is 15 bighas, 2 biswas and 5 biswansi, of this are admesuring 14 bighas, 14 biswas and 16 biswansi was sought to be acquired by respondent No. 1 for construction of a new sub-market yard of the Samiti (respondent No. 4) and for that purpose a notification was published by the Government in the Gazette on 15-3-1989 for general information stating that under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act the aforesaid land is needed for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of a new sub-market yard of the Samiti under a planned development scheme. The notification further states that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable to the said land, inasmuch as the said land is urgently ..required for the construction of a new sub-market yard of the Samiti under a planned development scheme. The notification further states that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable to the said land, inasmuch as the said land is urgently required for the construction of a new sub-market yard of the Samiti under a planned development scheme and in view of the pressing urgency, it is well necessary to eliminate the delay, likely to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. This is how the Government further directed under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply. Later, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 30-11-1989. It is not disputed that the notifications published under Section 4 on 15-3-1989 and declaration published under Section 6 on 30-11-1989, both were rescinded by the Government and a notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published afresh on 19-8-1991 and 18-8-1992 respectively. This fact is fully borne out from the notification dated 19-8-1991. published under Section 4 (Annexure 1 to, the second writ petition), which states that the Governor is pleased to rescind the government notifications dated 15-3-1989 and 30-11-1989. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State in the second writ petition, it is stated that the earlier notification was defective and, therefore, second notification dated 19-8-1991 was published under Section 4. In paragraph 20 of the second writ petition, it is admitted that the previous notifications dated 15-3-1989 and 30-11-1989, published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act "suffered from serious errors and have been rescinded by means of notification dated 19-8-1991 .....". Respondent No. 4, for whose benefit the land is acquired, also pleaded that the first set of notifications was rescinded by the Government, because there was some discrepancy in regard to the description of the subject-matter of the acquisition. This being the admitted position, we need not enter into the details of the error, which crept into the earlier notification.

(3.) Shri S. N. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged vehemently though there was no urgency of acquisition, the government illegally professed in both the sets of notifications that there was pressing urgency and, therefore, it was necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act and illegally directed that under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, shall not apply.