SURYA LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, praying for quashing the impugned notifications (Annexures-3 and 7 respectively to the writ petition) issued under Ss.4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that State of U.P. issued a notification dt/- 7-8-1979 under S.4(1) of the Act notifying that plots Nos. 66 Aa, 66Ba, 61Aa, 61Ba 8, 10, 67, 12, 9, 13, 41, 42, 43 and 44 situate in village Khaurashwa, pargana Basti East, Distt. Basti were to be acquired for public purpose, namely to construct a colony under Left Bank, Ghaghra Project. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are Bhumidhars of plot No. 66, measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas and 10 Biswansis. Plot No. 61 is a Bhumidhari of the petitioner No. 4 and plot No. 67 is Bhumidhari of petitioners Nos. 5 and 6. It is alleged that a considerable portions of plots Nos. 66 and 61 were covered by residential houses and there was also a small temple in plot No. 66. They filed objections under S.5A of the Act on the grounds inter alia that they were very poor tenure holders, owned no other property in the village and their houses are also situate in plots Nos. 66 and 61. Therefore, those plots should be exempted from acquisition proceedings. Thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer visited the spot along with the Executive Engineer on 7-3-1980 and found that there were houses and constructions in plots Nos. 13, 41, 44, 61 and 66. Plot No. 66 belongs to petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and plot No. 61 belongs to petitioner No. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held that those plots in which there were houses and constructions should not be acquired as in the case of acquisition the Government will have to spend a considerable amount towards payment of compensation on account of the building situate thereon. He further held that plot No. 44 belonging to Rajendra Pd., Surendra Pd. and Surendra Pd. is their entire land, which was proposed to be acquired and in that event they would become landless. On these findings the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2, made recommendation that plots Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44 and 12 be exempted from acquisition proceedings and the aforesaid notification under S.4(1) of the Act with respect to the aforesaid plots be cancelled. A true copy of the report and order passed by him on 9-3-1980 is attached to the writ petition as Annexure-6.

(3.) It is important to note that although the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2, had found at the time of inspection that there were houses over the aforesaid plots Nos. 61 and 66 still in the operative portion of his recommendation he omitted to mention the aforesaid plots from being exempted from acquisition proceedings. On 7-6-1980 a notification dated 2-5-1980 under S.6 of the Act with regard to plots Nos. 61, 66, 67, 13, 12, 10, 9 and 8 was published by the State Government. A copy of the same is attached to the writ petition as Annexure-VII. On 1-8-1980 when the petitioners received notice under Sec. 9(1) of the Act from respondent No. 2 they filed this writ petition.