SHAUKAT ALI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition petitioners are challenging the validity of a notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act asking the petitioners to deliver possession within 15 days of the service of the notice in respect of plot no. 331 situate in village Betiabata, Mirzapur. Initially when the petition was filed the principal ground taken in the petition was that the impugned notice is bad because no action under the Land Acquisition Act had been taken by the respondents. It was also asserted that no opportunity, what-so-ever, was afforded to the petitioners, under Section 5 of the said Act. However, after the exchange of affidavits, the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition was that plot no. 331 did not fall within the area, which was sought to be acquired by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Varanasi, here-in-after referred to as the Parishad, under the U. P. Avas and Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that none of the notifications issued either under Section 28 or 32 or even in the impugned notice there is any mention of plot no. 331 and consequently, no action for eviction of the petitioners from that plot could be taken in pursuance of those notifications.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- Parishad, in which it has been categorically asserted that in pursuance of a Housing and Improvement Scheme, framed under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam, a notification was issued under Section 28 and was duly published in Official Gazette and local news-paper on 21-7-79, 28-7-79 and 4-8-79. Individual notices were also issued, under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, and were served on petitioners 1 to 4, in pursuance whereof, objections were also filed by the various tenure-holders including the petitioners 1 to 3. Niyojan Samiti, which was delegated authority to consider objections, examined various objections and made recommendations to the Board. In the recommendations of the Niyojan Samiti, there is an express reference to plot no. 331. The original record pertaining to impugned acquisition proceedings was produced before us from which this assertion of the Parishad is fully borne out. The original recommendation of the Niyojan Samiti clearly discloses that there is a recommendation that in so far as pacca house belonging to the petitioners standing over an area of 25.28 square meters out of plot no. 331, the same may be released from the proposed acquisition. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that area covered by the pucca building standing on plot no. 331 has, in fact been released from the acquisition proceedings.