GAINDI DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

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 7/06/1955 read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. 20-1-55-Judl. (1) dated 14/05/1955, published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated 24/08/1985, as contained in Annexure-1, (ii) the Notification issued under S. 6 of the Act, bearing No. 2915/III-2(6)-84-GAD dated 28/07/1986, published in the Uttar Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 28/07/1986, 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 :-

(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.