RAMESH CHANDRA SAHNI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAM Veer Sharma, J. The in stant writ petition has been preferred with following reliefs: (1) To issue a writ in the nature of man damus commanding the opposite parties to withdraw the notification dated 5-7-1985 (An-nexure2 ). (2) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 5-7-1985 (Annexure 2), issued by the State of U. p

(2.) BACK ground facts are as below: The petitioner claims to be the owner and Bhoomdhar of plot Nos. 51, 143, 144, 228-Ka within the area of 5 bigha, 18 biswa and 14 biswansi situated in village Haibatmau Mawaiya, Pargana Bijnor, District Lucknow. It is al leged that the notification dated 5-7-1985 was published in official Gazette under Sections 4 (1) and 17 (4 ). On 27-6-1985, the notification was issued on 5-7-1985 under Section 6 of the Land Ac quisition Act, for the acquisition of the plots mentioned in the above (Annexure No. 2 ). It is alleged that the land is ac quired not for use of opposite party 1, but for the use of some society, company etc. It is contended that the same is being done to sell the land in higher rate. After notification dated 5-7-1985 for acquisition of the land, no steps were taken by the authority for obtain ing possession of the land. In view of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the proceedings for acquisition shall lapse if the award is not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration as notice was served on the petitioner under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Opposite Party No. 2, Lucknow Development Authority has no funds to make the payment of compensation. Opposite Party No. 2 issued the publi cation in the Pioneer Daily Newspaper which shows that the land shall be given on licence basis to meet out the growing demand of houses for the public, for development and construc tion of houses. it transpires that the Lucknow Development Authority wants to sell the land to private colonizers to earn profit. The acquisition proceed ings have started without giving any notice to the petitioner. The declaration was made in the official Gazette on 5-7-1985. No award has yet been given. Consequently, the proceedings should be deemed to be invalid as no posses sion was taken by the petitioner and no development took place in which the land is situated. It is averred that the ac quisition proceedings could not be allowed to go on infinity.

(3.) ON behalf of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 a joint counter-affidavit was filed stating that notification for acquisi tion of the aforesaid land was made in accordance with the provisions of Sec tions 4 and 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 27-6-1985 and on 5-7-1985 respectively (Annexures B-1 and B-2 ). Possession of the land in question was taken over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and further delivered to the Lucknow Development Authority on 3-2-1987 (Annexure B-3 ). The award in respect of the land in question was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 8-1-1988 (Annexure B-4 ).