BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') OD the ground that the said notification has been issued by the Secretary, Revenue and Waqf Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who is not authorised to issue the said notification in view of authorisation of the Director, Land Acquisition. It was further urged that there was no urgency for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. It was further alleged that the public purpose for which the land was acquired had already been completed on same other land. The said notifications were issued without any application of mind. The Director was never consulted before issuing the said notification or arriving at the decision for acquiring the said land. It was further alleged that the Gazette Notifica tion was published after publication in the Newspaper and, therefore, there was no notification in the eye of law since Gazette Notification is required to precede the Newspaper publication.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, a detailed history leading to the decision for acquiring the said land has been given. It has been pointed out that a new district Maharajganj was created by the State Govern ment under a notification dated 30th September, 1989. With effect from the date of the said notification, the said District was created on the basis of popular demand. IN order to establish the Headquarter of the said District for the functioning of the land administration, site selection was necessary. , For the purpose of selection of site, a Committee was constituted by the Government on 3rd February 1990. The said Committee was headed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division. IN the process of selecting site, the Chief Town Planner, Village Planner and concerned officials were deputed for examining several chunks of land and making spot enquiries. The Committee proposed the acquisition of 400 acres of land in village Satbhriya and Gaonariya Babu as most suitable. The said proposal was submitted on 19th January, 1991 to the State Government for approval by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division. It was also alleged that the selection of land was a time consuming one, since in view of several local pressure which were to be re conciled.

(3.) THE petitioners have filed their rejoinder-affidavit to the said counter affidavit and denied the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. A supple mentary counter-affidavit was filed seeking to elucidate the points already urged in the counter-affidavit, to which a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit was filed by the petitioner seeking to controvert the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit.