RAM PRAKASH NARANG Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Mr. A. K. Misra, coun sel for the respondents, pressed his ap plication for vacating the stay order passed m the present writ petition which is op posed vehemently by Mr. M. D. Singh, Counsel for the petitioners. The vehemence in which both the counsels have argued their respective case and their laborious submissions left no stone un turned in support of their respective case on the merit itself while seeking to bring home their respective contentions. The hearing on the application for vacating interim order virtually was a full-fledged hearing on the merits and demerits of the respective case which fact was fairly con ceded by both the counsels and both of whom implored this Court to decide the main writ petition as well along with the disposal of the application for vacating the interim order and had agreed to address the Court on the merits of the case itself.

(2.) IN my view, decision on the applica tion for vacating the interim order would have the effect of deciding the case on merits itself and the argument advanced by both the counsels makes it reasonable to decide the case on merit. Thus the ques tions arise for consideration of this Court and this Court had proposed to decide the same in the manner hereinafter.

(3.) IN reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in the ear lier writ petition, the challenge was thrown to the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The question of exemp tion was not involved in the earlier proceedings. The award was never the sub ject-matter of challenge in the said proceedings. The persons exempted are also subsequent purchaser. According to him, Section 9 is not excluded by reason of Section 17 and possessions to be taken even when Section 17 is applied within 15 days of the notice under Section 9 and the land vests only when possession is taken and such possession is to be equal and not symbolic. Relying on Section 17 (3-A) the learned Counsel for the petitioners con tends that unless 80% payment is made before taking possession, the taking over of possession is illegal. He further contends that the Meerut Development Authority ('mda' for short) does not re quire the land for the purpose it was sought to be acquired since it is proposing to construct Hotel, Motel, Nursing Home etc. and thus the purpose having been frustrated, the exemption should have been allowed in the case of the petitioner as well.