HAKIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions the question involved is the same, i.e., whether a notification under sub- section (4) of S, 17 of the Land Acqui sition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) can be issued if a notification under Section 17 (1) of the Act has not already been issued. Since that is the only question raised in these petitions, instead of a question being referred to us, the petitions have been referred to us for decision.

(2.) DESAI , C. J. and R. N. Sharma, J. In Sheikh Ghulam Maula v. State of U. P., 1964 All LJ 928 = (AIR 1964 All 353) took the view that a notification under Section 17 (4) of the Act without there being an earlier notification under Sec tion 17 (1) of the Act would be invalid.

(3.) IT may be pointed out that original ly Section 5-A and sub-section (4) of Sec tion 17 did not exist in the Act. These provisions were introduced by Sections 3 and 4 respectively of Act 38 of 1923. That Act was a remedial statute enacted to provide a remedy to the citizen against the acquisition of his land. Section 5- A of the Act gives a citizen the opportunity of objecting to the acquisition of his land. The object of introducing sub-section (4) of Section 17 in the Act is to extinguish the applicability of S. 5-A in case of urgency.