GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Roy and S. N. Tiwari, JJ. Through this writ petition, which was filed on 23-6-1988 i. e. during Summer Vacation, and it has been placed 'for Admission' before us, the petitioners pray to (i) com mand the Respondents not to take physi cal possession of 2 big has 6 biswas of lands comprised in plot No. 1528, Mauza Basal Mustaqil, Tajganj, Agra pursuant to the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 3-1- 1983 and 20-2-1985 respectively as contained in Annexure 1 and 2, (ii) declare the aforesaid Notifications as null and void, and (iii) alternatively, to quash the impugned notifications.

(2.) THE petitioners assert that the lands in question are in their possession pursuant to an agreement to sale dated 1-2-1975 (as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition) executed in their favour by the owners. Than Singh, Tulli, Tej Singh, Pancham, Hukmi and Jhamman (who, however, were not made parties to this writ petition ). Alongwith this writ petition, the petitioners also filed an application to stay their dispossession from the lands aforementioned. On 23-6-1988 the learned Vacation Judge, before whom this writ petition was placed, passed an interim order to this effect: "meanwhile till further orders of this Court the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute, if not already posses sion has been taken from them, in pursuance of the impugned notification issued under Sec tions 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act subject to the condition that the petitioners shall not made any further construction during this period. " A counter was filed by Respondent No. 3 challenging the correctness of the statements made in the writ petition. To this counter the petitioners filed a rejoinder. THE Respondent No. 3 got filed a supplementary affidavit along with the report of D. P. and the valuation table of the disputed land. THE petitioner filed a sup plementary rejoinder-affidavit on 5-4-1989 and second supplementary rejoinder- affidavit and a supplementary application to the writ petition taking fur ther grounds. THEreafter Respondent No. 3 filed a supplementary counter-affidavit. It maybe mentioned that Respondent No. 3 also filed an application for an earlier hearing of this writ petition as the petitioners obtained stay by suppressing the fact in regard to delivery of possession. THE petitioners had admittedly filed a suit No. 1567 of 1987 for specific performance of the contract against the others in the Court of 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Agra. A copy of their plaint is on the record as SA-1 to their own supplementary affidavit (filed on 31-3-1995 ). In their plaint of the suit they have stated, inter alia, that the Urban Land Ceiling Act came into enforcement under the provisions of which the ex ecutants were bound to serve notice under Section 26 of the said Act upon the Urban Land Ceiling Collector (U. L. C.) Agra for the said transfer but they failed to do so ; there was a proposal of the acquisition of the said lands for Taj Nagari Scheme and that proposal has been concluded in the middle of December, 1987, when the Award in respect of the said lands has been prepared to which they filed objections being interested persons but their objec tions were not properly appreciated as such the plaintiffs have no other alterna tive remedy except to file the present suit; the compensation amount is to be dis bursed as early as possible as the final award has been made and the defendants are in hot haste in withdrawing the said amount who could not withdraw the provisional amo- tit of compensation due to objections put by them before the Spe cial Land Acquisition Officer, Agra; that they are entitled to all the benefits arising out and all consequences of the suit property inducing the receipt of compen sation in lieu of the said property either acquired under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act or under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act etc. THE Notification under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) itself shows that action under Section 17 (1) of the Act was also taken. THE petitioners have also brought the award on the record as S. R. A. 8. From the award as well as the counter it is clear that the possession of the lands was delivered by the State in favour of the Respondent No. 3 on 15-10-1986 and that recourse of compulsory acquisi tion under Section 17 of the Act was also taken and that 80% of the compensation amount was deposited by Respondent No. 3. Annexure-CA 1, filed by Respondent No. 3 is the delivery of possession report dated 15-10-1986. Even though the suit filed by the petitioners was barred on ac count of 3 years limitation the 1st Addi tional Civil Judge, Agra proceeded to decree in ex pane. THEexparte order has been brought on the record by the petitioners as SA-2. Pursuant to decree in their favour, the Civil Court, after refusal by the owners-defendants, executed the sale-deed dated 10-11- 1993 in favour of the petitioners, a copy of which has been brought on the record by the petitioners as THE submissions:

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel Sri Yadav appearing on behalf of the State and the Special Land Acquisition Officer sup ported the contentions of Sri Swami Dayal.