RANJIT SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Prakash, J. This bunch of as many as 13 writ petitions arising out of ac quisition proceedings raised common ques tions of law and fact and, therefore, all the writ petitions are being decided by a com mon judgment.

(2.) IN the first set of writ petitions com prising writ petitions No. 39430/94, 39854/94 and 502/95, Shri Sushil Harkauli advanced arguments for petitioners: in the second set consisting of writ petitions No. 39853/94 and 2302/96, Shri Swami Dayal appeared for petitioners and in the third set of writ petitions comprising remaining cases, counsel for the petitioners Shri P. C, Pathak holding brief of Shri V K. Shukla adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Harkauli and Shri Swami Dayal and made no new submission.

(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit dated 25-4-1995 has been filed on behalf of the Mandi Samiti-respondent No. 3 pleading that a proposal accompanied by a plan was sent by the District Magistrate, Agra on 25-5- 1991 to the Government of U. P. for acquiring 10. 175 Hect. of land of village Bainptir for the construction of the market yard for fruits and vegetables pursuant to a resolution passed by the Mandi Samiti in 1991. It is denied that the plots of land belonging to influential persons were left out and that the plots of land belonging to the people of backward classes were in cluded in the notification issued under Sec tion 4 (1 ). It is averred that some plots belong to private persons and that out of the land vested in the Government or Gaon Sabha in view of the ceiling laws, the Mandi Samiti got certain plots of land released from the Government or the Gaon Sabha. It is averred that the factories situated on the plots in question are of temporary nature and most of them were established after the commencement of the acquisition proceed ings. In para 14 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the existing market yard is wholly inadequate to cater the needs of the growers to transact their business in the yard; that the existing market yard is bereft of basic amenities; that the existing market yard had been constructed more than 100 years back when the arrivals were meagre; that after mechanised farming the yield has grown tremendously and the existing yard is wholly illeguiped and insufficient to handle the ever increasing arrivals of the growers; that Section 5 was dispensed with as that would have considerably delayed the construction of a modern market yard and ultimately defeated the purpose; that realising the pressing urgency of setting up a modern market yard it was considered necessary to dispense with the hearing under Section 5 and, therefore, sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 were invoked in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act.