SHANKER LAL KHETAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri R. C. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, and Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4, at length and in detail.

(2.) FOR the purpose of construction of the building of Nehru Smark Balika Vidyalaya, Mundera Bazar, P. O. Chauri Chaura, Tehsil Sadar, district Gorakhpur Plot No. 214, situate in the same area whether the said school is located, is proposed to be acquired by means of notification dated 13th August, 1982 issued by the Collector, Gorakhpur, the respondent No. 2 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the 'act'. The notification was published in the official Gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 27th November, 1982 and the interested persons were invited to file objection under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner asserts that the respondent No. 2 has passed an order dated 29th September 1983 purporting to cancel the notification dated 13th August, 1983 and directing the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent No. 3, to issue notification for cancellation of the notification but the respondent No. 3 is not paying any heed to the order of the respondent No. 2. He, therefore prays that this Court may intervene and issue a suitable writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 3 to carry out the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 29th September, 1983.

(3.) THE court has read and re-read the alleged order dated 29th September, 1983, quoted above, but is unable to find any decision or order purporting to have been passed by the respondent No. 2 cancelling the notification dated 13th August, 1983 and directing the respondent No. 3 to issue notification for cancellation of the notification. THE order directs the Land Acquisition Clerk, who is not a party to this petition, to issue notification for cancellation of notification under Section 4, "if otherwise with rules" and is not a direction to the respondent No. 3. THE respondent No. 3, therefore, cannot be said to be under any obligation to comply the said order dated 29th September, 1983. THE prayer of the petitioner is palpably misconceived.