SATBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in these writ petitions have sought quashing of the same notifications under Ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby they have been deprived of their plots. Since the same notifications and common questions of law and facts are involved in the cases, therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by a common judgement. The counsel for the parties have agreed for decision of these writ petitions on merits at the stage of admission, therefore, we have proceeded to decide these writ petitions under Chap. XXI I Proviso to Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court.

(2.) Notification No. 3058/XI-5-85-II(4) Land Acquisition Act relates to notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and was published in the Gazette on 11-6-1985 whereas notification No. 3637/XI-5-85-11-(4) Land Acquisition Act relates to, notification under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act and was published in the Gazette on 13-6-1985. The notification under S.4 of the Act was published in daily newspapers on 19-7-1985 and the notification under S.6 of the Act was published in newspapers on 25-7-1985 but the substance of the two notifications was given at convenient places in the locality on 25-7-1985. The plots of the petitioners have been required for construction of residential/commercial buildings for the people of Meerut on Sardhana Road by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut under planned development scheme.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions the following contentions have been raised : Firstly, that the substance of the two notifications contemplated by the provisions of Ss.4 and 6 of the Act were given in the locality on 25-7-1985, therefore, the acquisition of the petitioners' plots is bad in law. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the two notifications contemplated under the provisions of Ss.4 and 6 of the Act cannot be published on the same day. Secondly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the appropriate Government mechanically applied the provisions of S.17(4) of the Act to the claim of the petitioners. Thirdly, it has been contended that the plots of the petitioners have not been acquired in the public interest, Rather, a large number of residents of the village would be uprooted. Fourthly, it has been contended that there did not exist any such urgency as to eliminate opportunity to the petitioners to file objections under S.5-A of the Act. Fifthly, it has been contended that the Government has acted arbitrarily and discriminately in acquiring the plots of the petitioners. Lastly, it has been contended that there was no development plan, yet the petitioners' land has been acquired arbitrarily and discriminately. In this connection Shri J.N. Tiwari, a senior counsel of this Court, has referred to Annexures-C.A.V. and C.A.VI attached with the counter-affidavit of Shri Om Pal Singh.