LACHHMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and further for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to give effect to the said notifications and refrain from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that on the 14th of December 1956, a notification purporting to be one under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for general information that the disputed land was needed for public purpose and that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the said Act applied and that the provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act would not apply to these proceedings. Thereafter another notification dated the 27th of December 1956, was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act giving out that the laird was needed for public purpose and the Collector of Bulandshahr was directed to take orders for the acquisition o the said land. It was further provided in the notification that as the case was one of urgency the Collector was directed on the expiry of the notice to take possession of any waste or arable land forming part of the land measuring 47.5 acres situated in Khurja, belonging to the petitioners as tenants, for the alleged construction oi an Engineering Institute. The land in dispute is plot No. 1551 measuring 52 acres, Mohal Baqi Mada at Qasba Khurja, district Bulandshahr, and was known as 'Bhura Parao Sarkari'. It was declared surlpus from military needs and was let out in 1939 to Lachhmi Narain, petitioner, and Sri Krishna Gopal, father of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, under a registered lease deed dated the 9th of June 1939 to the extent of 48 acres and 24 polies for thirty years for cultivation etc., on a rent of Rs. 550 per year and about four acres of land to the J. A. S. High School, Khurja, on lease on a rent of Rs. 50 per annum. It is asserted by the petitioners that due to some personal enmity between the petitioners and one Sri Din Dayal, M.L.A., the District Magistrate was forced by the said M.L.A. to issue a notice dated the 25th October 1955 to the petitioners to quit the land. As against that order a writ petition No. 1254 of 1955 was filed in this Court. That writ petition was withdrawn on some undertaking being given by the Standing Counsel. Another notice dated the 19th of June 1958 was issued by the Collector requiring the petitioners to deliver possession of the entire land to the Tehsildar. Thereafter a writ petition No. 1384 of 1956 was filed in this Court. The petitioners' contention was that they were hereditary tenants of the land and that the land could not be resumed and that without filing a suit they could not be ejected by the executive orders. The writ petition was, however, rejected on the 12th of November 1956. A Special Appeal against that order was also rejected on the 29th of November 1956. Thereafter these land acquisition proceedings were taken for the acquisition of the piece of land which is in the possession of the petitioners. In para. 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is asserted that the petitioners are still in possession of the land in dispute and the land contains residential houses, servant quarters and cattle-sheds, etc., which are mostly pucca buildings of considerable value, including tubewell, pucca drainage and other constructions. It also contains a large number of fruit bearing and timber trees planted by the petitioners on the land which constitute grove as defined in the Tenancy Act, and these constructions and trees constituting grove are spread over the land in dispute and in acquisition of 47.5 acres land all of them would be lost to the petitioners. It is further alleged in the affidavit that there are about four acres of land of this plot which had already been vacated by the school to which it was let out and it is already at the disposal of the Government to be used for any purpose. There is also, according to the petitioners, a large acreage of waste and uncultivated land lying in Qasba Khurja which can be easily acquired for the construction of the school and the petitioners' land which is very fertile and highly developed does not deserve to be taken for the construction of the Engineering School. On these facts the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The contentions raised by the petitioners are firstly, that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are invalid inasmuch as a part of the land sought to be acquired is admittedly not waste or arable land with regard to which powers under Section 17 (4) could not be exercised by the State Government. As that part is not severable from the other part the entire notification under Section 4 is illegal. It is contended in this connection that in respect of the land which is admittedly not a waste or arable laud by making a declaration under Section 17 (4) which was to apply both to waste and arable land as well as non-arable and non-waste land the persons interested in such a land have been deprived of their right to file objections under Section 5-A and as such the subsequent notifications under Section 6 are also invalid. Secondly, it was contended that on the facts alleged by the petitioners in their affidavit which have not been substantially controverted a major part of the land consists of buildings and grove of the petitioners and as such the land could be regarded as a waste or arable land and the power under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act could not be exercised in respect of such a land. Thirdly, it was contended that the order was mala fide inasmuch as it was passed at the instance of some M.L.As. who were inimical to the petitioners and was not a bona fide order. And lastly, it was contended that there was no public purpose inasmuch as there was other land which was available or the construction of the Engineering. School. On this ground it is further alleged that the notifications are discriminatory.