MANNE KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has, filed this Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the proceedings for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner started in pursuance of the notifications under Ss.4 and 6 issued by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The notification under S.4 of the Act is dt. 4th June, 1983 and was published in the U.P. Gazette dt. 6th June, 1983. The provisions of S.17(1)(1-A) of the Act were made available as also the provisions of S.17(4), and the provisions for filing objection under S.5-A of the Act were dispensed with. The notification under S.6 is dt. 16th June, 1983 and was published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dt. 16th June, 1983. Copies of the notifications under Ss.4 and 6 of the Act are marked as Annexure-1 and 2 to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has challenged these two notifications on a variety of grounds. Firstly, that the provisions of S.17 of the Act were applied without application of mind at all. Secondly, the plots of the petitioner were neither waste nor arable and yet they were sought to be acquired. Thirdly, in regard to urgency, the State Government did not apply its mind with full care and attention, for there was no urgency as the land was sought to be acquired for residential purpose. Fourthly, holding of an enquiry under S.5-A of the Act was mandatory and its dispensation was bad in law. The notification under S.4 of the Act had not been published in two daily newspapers circulating in the area and the Collector had not caused public notice at any convenient place in the locality. The Collector, Allahabad, had neither issued notice under S.9(1) nor he served special notice under S.9(3) to the petitioner and, consequently, the provisions of S.9 of the Act had been violated. The serving of notices under S.9(3) of the Act in the months of June and July to some of the villagers was not tantamount to service of notice on the petitioner. The non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under S.9 and the land acquisition proceedings subsequent to S.9 of the Act made the entire acquisition proceedings invalid and void. The award dt. 22-9-1986 passed by the Collector was also vitiated. The period of 15 days from the notification under S.9(2) of the Act had not also been complied with. Consequently, the petitioner could not take part in the proceedings by filing objection or adducing evidence. In other words, the petitioner's case in the Writ Petition was that the proceedings under the Act was bad in law for noncompliance with the requirements of S.4(1), S.6(1), S.9(1) and S.9(3) of the Act. The petitioner has also stated that there has been no compliance with the requirements of Sub-Sec. (3-A) of S.17 of the Act. That provision requires the acquiring body to tender payment of eighty per cent of the compensation of such land to the persons entitled thereto and pay to them unless prevented by contingency mentioned in S.31(2) of the Act. It was urged that there has been no compliance with this provision.

(3.) The petitioner also stated that part of land in plots Nos. 195, 142, 444, 515, 517 and 109/2, all situate in Chak Babura Aleemabad had been declared surplus under S.10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act', and the Collector had not made any Award on 22-9-1986 in respect of the following areas of the aforementioned plots :- 1 Biswa 14 dhoor of plot No. 195 14 Biswa 2 Bigha 2 of plot No. 142 14 Biswa 6 dhoor of plot No. 444 3 Biswa 7 dhoor of plot No. 515 16 Biswa 13 dhoor of plot No. 517 4 Biswa 7 dhoor of plot No. 109/2 The petitioner further stated that the respondent No. 2 had not made any award in respect of a total area of 2 Bigha 14 Biswa 7 dhoor of the petitioner's land acquired under the notifications under Ss.4 and 6 of the Act. It is further stated that the respondent 2 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad) had not given possession over these plots of land of the petitioner to respondent 3 (Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad), and the latter has no right or title to take possession of the area 2 Bigha 14 Biswa 7 dhoor acquired under the Act. The respondent 2 made the Award dt. 22-9-1986 in respect of village Chak Babura in respect of the land acquired under the Act, but the actual possession had not been taken by respondent 3 till the date of swearing of the affidavit on 19th Nov. 1987 and the possession was on paper only but not in reality.