MALTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is owner of plots Nos. 491, 494, 498, 499 and 497, having an area of 3 Bighas which according to her were used by her for the purposes of business as also for worship. She has constructed a Pucca residential house, cattle shed, oil mill, flour mill, temple and a Samadhi of her father-in-law, on the said land and runs there a Dairy and Poultry farm. THE opposite party No. 3 got the said land acquired for developing a Housing Scheme. When the petitioner came to know of the acquisition, she made a representation dated 16th January, 1970 and also met the Commissioner of Housing Board, Uttar Pradesh who, it is alleged, informed her that her land would not be acquired and that she would not be disturbed. However, on 12th January, 1973 a few employees of the Housing Board reached the land and started making measurements and counting the trees and plants standing thereon to which the petitioner objected. Aggrieved by that action of the opposite parties the petitioner sent a reminder to the Commissioner of the Housing Board on 31st Feb., 1973 but to no avail. She was served with the impugned notice and was told to represent her case before the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Housing Board. THEse notices are Annexures-3 and 3-A. Her contention is that the land and property in question were neither waste land nor arable land and that she was never informed of the principle on the basis of which the compensation of land and the material embeded on it would be paid. THE plan of the scheme was neither shown to her nor sent to her in any manner. She has alleged that there are other private buildings, business premises and worship places in the locality which have been excluded from the scheme and had not been acquired by the opposite parties, whereas her property was being acquired. She has thus been discriminated against without any reasonable basis. She submitted a memorandum of objection in this regard before the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Housing Board, but neither the representations nor objections have been disposed of. THE opposite parties, however, have decided to acquire the land of the petitioner arbitrarily. She has further alleged that Ss. 17 (1) and 17 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as incorporated in the schedule to Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam under S. 55 of the said Act are ultra vires and violative of the provisions of Arts. 13 (2), 31, 31-A, 31-B, 31-C and 19 of the Constitution. She has also alleged that the impugned notice is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and as her land was not being acquired for the public purpose, the acquisition is not saved by Art. 31-C of the Constitution. She has, therefore, prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the scheme so far as it relates to her land and also quashing the impugned notice. She has also prayed for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the opposite parties from acquiring her land.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the opposite parties. THE counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 3, namely, the Commissioner, Housing Board, dated 24th May, 1973 discloses that the disputed land was being acquired for Bastauli Ghazipur Bhumi Vikas Evam Grihasthan Yojna, Lucknow. A notification under S. 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikash Parishad Adhiniyam, hereinafter called the Act, was published in the U. P. Gazette, dated 20-12-1969, 27-12-1969 and 3-1- 1970 and also in the Pioneer (English Daily) and Navjeewan (Hindi Daily) of the same dates. A notice under S. 29 of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 19-1-1970 and was served on Laxmi Narain, a servant of the petitioner' s husband. THE scheme was sanctioned by the State Government on 17th June, 1970 and a notification under S. 32 of the Act was published in the U. P. Gazette, dated 8th July, 1972. Sanction of the State Government under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was given on 12th Oct., 1972 and a notification dated 12th Oct., 1972 under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam was published in the U. P. Gazette, dated 28th Oct., 1972. THE petitioner, however, did not file any appeal to the State Government within 30 days, as required by S. 32 (3) of the Act. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that out of the land of the petitioner having an area of 2 bighas 17 biswas 15 biswansis, possession over 2 bighas 8 biswas has already been taken. However, possession of Kothris and tube well has not been taken and these constructions are said to be unauthorised having been made after the publication of the notification under S. 28 of the Act. It is further alleged that the petitioner knew about the notification and had filed her objections on l6th Jan., 1970 which were heard by the Planning and Development Committee of the Parishad in the presence of Sri P. N. Singh, husband of the petitioner, on 18-2-1971. THE objections were rejected and the decision was approved by the Parishad on 22nd May, 1971. THE allegation of the petitioner that the then Commissioner of the Housing Board had given any assurance to her that her land would not be acquired has been denied. THE other averments made by her have also been repudiated. In her rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated her allegations made in the petition and has denied the averments made on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 in the counter-affidavit.

(3.) THE other contention of the petitioner that the impugned acquisition is violative of Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution is equally without substance. It is by now well settled that a law for compulsory acquisition of property made under Art. 31 (2) cannot be challenged under Art. 19 (1) (f) read with Art. 19 (5) of the Constitution. (See AIR 1969 SC 634 (State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas) and AIR 1968 SC 870 (Ishwarlal Girdharlal v. State of Gujarat)).