JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have challenged the order dated 23. 10. 2007 passed by the Secretary, Industrial Development, U. P. , Lucknow rejecting their representation requesting for release of land in question under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The State Gov ernment has rejected request of the petitioners on the ground that since the possession of the land in question was already taken by the State, therefore, land in question cannot be released from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act.

(2.) SRI Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by SRI Vishnu Gupta, vehemently contended that finding of the respondent No. 1 that the possession of land in question was taken by the respondents is perverse and contrary to material on record and, therefore, the impugned order, having been passed on non-est facts, is liable to be set aside and the respondent No. 1 be required to pass fresh order on the petitioners' representation in accordance with law.

(3.) THE respondents, however, disputed the aforesaid submission and said that memorandum or Panchnama prepared by SLAO is sufficient to show that the possession of the land in question was taken and in support thereof reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in State of T. N, and another v. Mahalakshmi Ammal and others, 1996 (7) SCC 269 and General Manager, Telecommunication and another v. Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 268.