PRAMOD GOEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Jain, J. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the relief of certiorari quashing Notifications dated 15th July, 1978 and 17th July, 1978 issued under Section 4 and under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), published in the Gazette on 4-11-1978. Copies of the notifications are Annexure 10 and An-nexure 10-A annexed to the petition. The petitioners further seek quashing of the award dated 18th March, 1980 given by the S. L. A. O.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case arc that the State Government issued the notifica tions for the acquisition of about one acre of land which was required for the construc tion of Gangoh Bye-pass road in Saharan- pur uisirict. THE Notification dated 15th July, 1978 and 17th July, 1978 were publish ed in the Gazette on 4th November, 1978 and the award was given by the S. L. A. O. on 18th March, 1980. THE petitioners never raised any objection at any stage because, according to them, they had no notice of the proceedings. It is alleged by the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings are mala fide and no notice was published in the locality. It is further alleged that the proceedings were conducted stealthily keeping the petitioners in the dark about the proceedings and the service of notice on the petitioners was deliberately avoided and suppressed.

(3.) THIS contention has no force be cause the petitioners have not named any single officer of the Government who may have been dis- pleased on account of filing of the suit or the filing of the writ petition. Incidentally it may also be mentioned that the suit and the writ petition was filed by respondent No. 5 Sri Inder Sen and not by the petitioners. During this period of more than 10 years which elapsed between the first land acquisition proceeding and the third land acquisition proceeding, a number of officers must have been transferred. It cannot be believed that every successor of ficer was prejudiced against the petitioners. THIS contention is, therefore, rejected.