SHRI SHASHANK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notification No. 969/pw/2003-06 (Budget)/2003 dated 5-5-2004 issued under section 4 (1) read with section 17 (1) of the Land Ac quisition Act, 1894 and Notification No. 424/1 111 (2)/2005-06 (Budget)/ 2003, Dehradun dated 14th March 2005 issued under section 6 read with section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, by which the land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of extension of Secretariat at Dehradun.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the petitioner has taken property bearing No. 24 (new No. 16, Block-II), Rajpur Road, Dehradun measuring about 4938. 37 Sq. Meter on perpetual lease from its owner, Mr. Sandeep Goyal on rent of Rs. 10. 000/- per annum and premium rent of 50 years i. e. Rs. 1,50,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to Sri Sandeep Goyal and lease deed dated 22-9-1999 was duly executed before the Sub Registrar, Dehradun. Sri Sandeep Goyal died on 15-10-2003 leaving behind a Will dated 28-6-2003. According to the petitioner the property in question was later on bequeathed in his favour by Sri Sandeep Goyal, there fore, he is the owner and in possession of the property bearing No. 24, (New No. 16, Block-II) Rajpur Road, Dehradun measuring about 4938. 37 Sq. meters. On 5-5-2004, the respond ents issued a Notification under section 4 (1) read with section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acqui sition of the total land at 24, Rajpur Road, Dehradun measuring about 2. 301 hectare for expansion of Secre tariat in the North of Secretariat at Dehradun which included the land of the petitioner in which a residential house and a wedding point namely Radha Mohan Wedding Point are situ ated. The notification' dated 5-5-2004 was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 480 (MB) of 2004, and the same was disposed of by this Court on 30-10-2004 with the fol lowing directions. "in view of the urgency felt, we feel that it will be better for us to fix the programme. Public notice shall, therefore, be given within seven days from today inviting the objec tions. The concerned Land Acquisi tion Officer, who is to hear the ob jections, shall hear them within fif teen days. All the objections shall be filed before the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer shall dispose of the matter one way or the other after giving full opportunity of hearing etc. by De cember 2004 or as the case may be earlier thereto. " Thereafter the respondent No. 2, in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, invited objections from the concerned parties vide advertise ment published in Dainik Jagaran and Amar Ujala news papers on 6-11-2004. The petitioner filed his ob jections before the respondent no. 2 on 22-12-2004. It is alleged that the respondent no. 2 neither gave any opportunity of hearing to the peti tioner nor disposed of the objec tions. The respondent no. 2 affixed the notification dated 14-3- 2005 is sued under section 6 read with Sec tion 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, on the wall of Radha Mohan Wedding Point.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government is not competent to issue declaration un der section 6 of the Act after notifica tion under section 4 (1) of the Act, with out disposing of the objections under section 5-A of the Act and without giv ing opportunity of hearing to the af fected persons. THE petitioner has sub mitted that the plea of urgency raised by the respondents is baseless as the High Court in writ petition No. 480 (MB) of 2004 vide order dated 30-10-2004 issued directions to the respond ents to dispose of the objections by De cember 2004 but the respondents with out complying with the order of the High Court, issued impugned notifica tion dated 14-3-2005. THE counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Collector has not paid eighty percentum of estimated compensation to the petitioner as provided under sec tion 17 (3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He has further submitted that there was no urgency of acquisi tion of the land for the proposed sec retariat.