GAINDI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioners is to quash (i) the Notification issued under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act bearing No. 1215-III-2 (6)/84 dated June 7, 1955 read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. 20-1-55-Judl. (1) dated May 14, 1955, published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated 24th August, 1985, as contained in Annexure-1, (ii) the Notification issued under S. 6 of the Act, bearing No. 2915/iii-2 (6)-84-GAD dated July 28, 1986, published in the Uttar Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 28th July, 1986, as contained in Annexure-2, and (iii) the award dated 23-8-1988 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital in Case No. 49/3 of 1984-85, as contained in annexure-3.

(2.) THE petitioners assert that the land in question measuring one acre, of plot No. 319 of village Kichha, Paragna Rudrapur, District Nainital was acquired for construction of Telephone Exchange and Staff Quarters whereas the Telephone Exchange and some of the staff quarters had already been constructed on a different land. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the writ petition read thus:- "2. That a notice under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for proposing the acquisition of the said Land for construction of Telephone exchange and staff quarters was published. Said notice was published in a local news paper named Uttar Ujala on 28-7-1985 and in another local news papers named Amar Ujala on 29-7-85 and in official Gazette on 24-8-1985. So the date of publication of Notice under S. 4 was 24-8-1985, the last date of Publication. A true Photo copy of Publication of notice Gazette are being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure 'i' to this writ petition.

(3.) THAT thereafter a formal inquiry was conducted and an Award was made under S. 11 on 23-8-1988. A certified copy of Award is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure 'iii' to this writ petition. " 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, sworn by the Land Acquisition Amin of the office of the Collector, Nainital, it has been stated, inter alia, that the Notification under S. 4 of the Act was issued on 24-8-1985; Notification under S. 6 was published on 28-7-1986, while the award was given on 23-8-1988, the names of the petitioners do not appear in the revenue records; plot No. 319 was purchased on 26-6-1986 in the name of the petitioner during the pendency of the acquisition proceeding; it is wrong to say that the Telephone Exchange and some of the staff quarters have already been constructed on different site, rather the Telephone Exchange is in a private building, which was not found sufficient; it is wrong to say that the publication of the Notification under S. 6 was not made within a year from the date of publication of the Notification under S. 4 or that the award under S. 11 was not made within two years inasmuch as the sustance of the Notification was issued in the locality and published in two local newspapers 'amar Ujala' dated 29-7-1985 and 'uttar Ujala' dated 28-7-1985, which are locally circulated and it is wrong to say that the acquisition proceeding had lapsed and the respondents are not entitled to take possession of the land under the award; possession, however, has not been taken so far; and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, sworn by S. D. M. , Telecom. Legal, Head Quarters, Haldwani, apart from reiterating the facts stated in the counter affidavit of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been stated, inter alia, that even today the department is having urgent need of the land in question; through various letters appended as Annexures-1, 3, 4 and 5 written by the District Magistrate to the State Government as well as Telecom Department, possession of the and in question was sought to be immediately handed over to the Telecom Department for the purpose of construction of Telephone Exchange. 5. Rejoinders have been filed by the petitioners to the aforementioned counters stating therein that fresh proposals have been forwarded on 6-10-1995 for construction of exchange and staff quarters, but this fact has been deliberately concealed, which shows that the land has become unsuitable and that the entire proceeding has lapsed because of the construction of the new Road Bridge.