A R SAREEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. M. Lal, J. One A. P. Sareen and 20 others approached this Court under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India seek ing an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 18th April, 1996 issued under Sec tion 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the notifications dated 13th June, 1996 under Section 17 read with Section 9 of the Act issued by the respondent No. 1 State of L'. P. attacking on various grounds that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has wrongly been dispensed with and that the requirements of Section 17 (1) or Section 17 (2) of the Act are not satisfied and there fore, the power under Section 17 (4) of the Act for dispensing with the enquiry cannot be invoked.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition is being disposed of with the consent of parties in accordance with the Rules of Court.

(3.) THUS, in the matters of taking pos session under the Act, deeming fiction ap plies. In this regard this legal position can not be lost sight of that when fact is to be deemed by fiction of law, as interpreted by the apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority case (supra), its consequences and incidents are also to be deemed i. e. what follows from the deemed fact is also to be deemed. Accordingly if the posses sion is deemed to have been taken over, the petitioners are to be deemed to have been divested of the possession, consequently nothing survives in the notification for challenge. At the most the petitioner may raise their claim for adequate compensa tion.