MUTSADDI LAL Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The Petitioners are owners of plots Nos. 1498 to 1504 measuring more than three Bighas of land situate in the town of Modinagar, district Meerut. The plots are enclosed by a Kuchha boundary wall, and the Petitioners have a bungalow on some of the above plots and also a pucca well. The land is adjacent to the Grand Trunk Road. Proceedings for the acquisition of this land were first started in 1949 at the instance of a Co-Operative Development Union, and a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. The Petitioners filed objections under Section 5A of that Act and the notification was withdrawn. The present land acquisition proceedings were started at the instance of the UP Roadways and a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28-7-1954. The, Petitioners filed objections again under Section 5A of the Act, and the Land Acquisition Officer was of the opinion that the acquisition of this land would prove very costly to the Government, though the land was quite suitable for the purpose for which it was being acquired, namely, the construction of a Roadways Bus Station. The Collector was of the opinion that the Petitioners' property would be ruined if the land was acquired by the Government, and he recommended that the Bus Station be constructed on plot No. 1479 owned by the Government itself. The Government then made a reference to the Executive Engineer, and the Executive Engineer sent a report saying that the levelling of plot No. 1479 would cost about Rs. 7,200. On this report being received, the Government appears to have decided to acquire the land in dispute and issued a notification under Section 6 of the Act on 27-8-1955. The Petitioners then submitted a representation to the Minister for Transport on 3-10-1955, but the representation was not accepted, and the present petition was filed on 31-1-1956 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to refrain from taking any further steps whatsoever towards the acquisition of the land in dispute.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged three points in support of his petition. His first submission is that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were not valid, inasmuch as they did not specify the land which was to be acquired. The second submission is that the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were mala fide and were started at the instance of the Co-operative Development union which, after having failed in their attempt to have the land acquired, set up the Roadways department to do the same. Lastly, he has submitted that the provisions of Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act are applicable to the facts of this case, and the Government could not acquire a part of the Petitioners' compound and were bound to acquire the entire property including the bungalow and the rest of the compound.