RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire case in this writ petition is apparently, based on a certain meeting which took place on 5/04/1990 at 3.00 p.m. in the presence of an Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, while on tour at village Kasna and Ichchhar, District Bulandshahr and certain assurances which were given in the presence of five officials and the Member of the Legislative Assembly of the District, aforesaid. In reference to certain directions of the Hon'ble Minister and the decision which may have been taken at the meeting, either on the record or off the record, the petitioners apply to the High Court to seek a prerogative writ and by a certificate action, to examine ministerial responsibility.

(2.) The first basic misconception of the petitioners is that the meeting of 5/04/1990 is a decision of the State. The petitioners call this a government order. This is not so. The conduct of the business of the State will be transacted only in accordance with Art. 166 of the Constitution of India. The issue in the writ petition is that after the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been published acquiring certain land, the variations had been ordered by the Hon'ble Minister, in deference to the recital in the notification, to be put up into effect. The notifications which are referred to, are No. 10714 Bha.U./XVIII-11-28 Bha.86, dated 1/03/1989, appended as Annexure- 1 to the writ petition and No. 2807 Bha. U./XVIII-11-29 Bha.86, dated 31/03/1989, appended as Annexure- 2 to the writ petition. The petitioners admit that their land was acquired and they further admit that they have received 90 per cent of the compensation as a consequence of the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) The petitioners contend that the land was acquired "for the planned industrial development in the district of Bulandshahr through the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur. In this regard, they refer to the notification dated I March 1989, aforeesaid. Thereafter, they contend that the land was transferred to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. Both the organisations, i.e., one for whom the land was acquired and the other to whom the land ryas transferred subsequently, are parties respondents to the writ petition.