HAUSILA BUX SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification dated 7-12-1972, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, certain plots of land mentioned therein were sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, construction of godown and allied buildings. The petitioner holds plots Nos. 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 having an area of 3. 176 acres. He filed an objection, dated 27th December, 1972, before the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act, a copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, a declaration dated 17th July, 1973, under Section 6 of the Act, was issued that the plots of land mentioned therein were required for the aforesaid public purpose. This was followed by a notice dated 10th September, 1973, under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 14th September, 1973, for the quashing of the aforesaid notification under Section 4 of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the notice under Section 9 of the Act. He also claimed for a mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to acquire the land of the petitioner or take possession of the same. The petition has been resisted on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) THE principal ground of attack is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity whatsoever by the Collector of hearing or tendering evidence in sup-port of his case. In the counter affidavit it is not stated that, the petitioner was given any opportunity of adducing evidence or of hearing. In para. 10 of the counter affidavit it is stated that there was no such point in the objection filed by the petitioner for which the petitioner was required to give evidence. Hence there was no necessity to call the petitioner for the production of any evidence. The reasons for coming to that conclusion are also stated in para. 10 of the counter affidavit. We have to see whether there had been any non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act and if so, what would be its effect. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act reads:--

(3.) IT is by now well settled that the proceedings before the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act are quasi-judicial. The Collector is required to send his recommendation to Government on the basis of his finding together with the record of the proceedings for the ultimate decision by the Government. Rules have been framed with regard to the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act, vide notification No. 7918/1-A-501, dated 19th November, 1923, Rule 1 says that :-