RAMESHWAR SARAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raise similar questions in respect of acquisition of the petitioners' land in village Majhauli, Tehsil and District Moradabad. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of a shopping complex. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is dated 22nd January, 1986. The notification under section 6 of the Act is dated 27th January, 1986. The notice under section 9 of the Act is dated 7th April, 1986. Plot no. 292 (0. 47 acres) is involved in Writ Petition No. 19446 of 1986; plot no. 286 (1.45 acres) and plot no. 287 (1.54 acres) are involved in Writ Petition No. 20368 of 1986 and the remaining three plots viz., plot no. 280-M (0. 37); plot no. 282 (1.42 acres) and plot no. 283-M (0. 20 acres) are involved in Writ Petition No. 1507 of 1987. The purpose of acquisition has been stated as follows : "For commercial purpose (construction of shopping centre) at village Majholi, Tehsil and district Moradabad by the Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad under the planned Development Scheme."

(2.) THE petitioners have urged that the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Act were not complied with in the present case, inasmuch as there was no publication of the notification in any newspaper and the substance of the notification has not been publicised in the locality. It has been stated in paragraph 25 of the Writ Petition No. 20368 of 1986 that "the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act have never been notified to the public as required by sections 4 and 6 of the Act. THEy were never published in any newspaper, regional or otherwise. THE Collector of Moradabad never caused any public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at any place much less convenient place in the said locality." THE petitioners have further stated that they received information from the Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad, in this regard and Annexure 6 to the petition contains the questions asked by the petitioners and the answer given by the Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad. Three questions were asked and the answers to all the three questions are in the negative. THE first question was whether tenure-holders had been given any notice under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Secondly, whether any notice regarding sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been pasted at proper place and thirdly, whether any information regarding notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been given or printed in any newspaper. THE reply to the allegations made in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the petition has been given in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed by Qamar Iqbal. THE contents of paragraph 25 of the writ petition are stated to be not correct. It is asserted that publication was made in the U. P. Gazette and notifications were also published in the locality. THE acquisition was also announced by beat of drum in January, 1986, and the Collector had caused public notice of the substance of the notifications published in the locality by beat of drum in the last week of January, 1986, and the contents of Annexure 6 to the petition are incorrect. Further, provisions of section 5-A of the Act having been dispensed with, it was not necessary to give individual notice to the petitioners.

(3.) MR. S. P. Gupta, has, however, contended that there are three essential ingredients of section 4 (1) of the Act viz., publication of notification in the gazette; publication of notification in two newspapers which have a circulation in the locality atleast one of which should be in the regional language and the public notice of the substance of such notification has to be given at convenient place in the said locality. Until all these three ingredients are complied with, no acquisition proceedings can be based on such incomplete notification. In this context, he relied on the meaning of the words "publication of the notification" given in section 4 (1) of the Act itself. He also said that the provisions of section 4 (2) of the Act could not be brought into effect until all the three modes of publication were resorted to by the authority concerned.