RAM KISHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners pray to quash the orders as contained in Annexure III, v. and VI passed by the Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE portrayal of the relevant facts is in a narrow compass. The three Petitioners claim themselves to be bhumidhar of 8 Bissau 5 Door of land in Plot No. 281 and 9 Biswa 5 Dhoor of land in Plot No. 287 of village Panwaripur. Several persons of village Bhadaura moved the District Magistrate, Meerut to requisition the lands of the Petitioners as road on the grounds mentioned in their application (copy appended as Annexure 1) on which a recommendation was made by the Lekhpal to requisition 5 Bissau 1 Biswansis of land out of Plot No. 287 and 2 Biswa 7 Biswansis of land in Plot No. 291. The Topsider, exercising the powers of the Authority under Section 3 of the Act, issued notice to Petitioner No. 3 for withdrawing his possession from the lands aforementioned as well as removal of any property, if it exists over them, besides for filing any claim for compensation within 30 days of the receipt of notice. From the service report dated 07.09.83, it appears that the Petitioner No. 3 refused to indorse his signature after reading out contents of the notice as well as to accept it, hence notice was affixed on his house. It further appears that an objection was filed by the Petitioners on 13.09.1983 on the grounds, inter alia, that there is a boundary wall on the lands in question and the proposed road can be shifted. The Tehslldar -cum Requisitioning Authority, Meerut rejected the objection of the Petitioner on the following grounds (i) By acceptance of the proposal of the objector, the problem is not solved, (ii) The Block Committee, Rota in its resolution dated 15.09.1983 had requested to straighten the road in question. The objection cannot be entertained at this stage as the lands have already been requisitioned and that it appears that the wall was erected by the objector after the initiation of the requisition proceedings, (iii) It would be proper to construct the road on the requisitioned land after taking its possession. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the Petitioners assert to the effect that their land cannot be requisitioned on the application of some people of a different village, which was not supported by any resolution of the Gaon Sabha nor was such resolution of the Gaon Sabha filed in view of the provisions contained under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act, whereas the District Magistrate had passed orders directing the Topsider to requisition the land only on the basis of the application filed by some persons of village Bhadaura. The Petitioner filed a review under Section 12 of the Act which was heard and dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide his order dated 5th July, 1984 holding as follows The land has already been requisitioned (it) The Petitioners have not disclosed such facts from which it could be proved that they have sustained irreparable injury from the requisition of their lands which measures only 2 Biswa, 7 Biswansis of which possession has also been delivered.

(3.) ON the other hand Sri Yadav, the learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that there was no question of affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners before requisitioning their lands. Reasons have been validly assigned by the authorities. It was not the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before the review Court that no resolution was passed by the Gaon Sabha concerned which fact is also supported by the impugned order and this question is being agitated for the first time before the Court without appending copy of his review petition and/or any certificate of his counsel who had argued the review petition that such a point was pressed at the time of hearing of the review petition.