LAWS(ALL)-2009-11-50

RAM NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On November 20, 2009
RAM NATH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were bhumidhars of 0.280 acre of Plot No. 2286 out of total area of 0.766 acre of the plot situate in Village Pardaha, Distt. Mau. They purchased the plot through registered sale deed dated 3.1.1987 from Ram Dhani and Shiv Dhani sons of Rajpati. It is alleged that they constructed one room shed, with roof on the plot and that there are five neem trees, one peepal tree and one sheesham tree on the land. The entire plot No. 2286 (area 0.310 hects.), including the land purchased by petitioners was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the official gazette dated 18.3.1989, for acquisition by the State Government for establishing District Offices and residential houses for officers and employees of Distt. Mau. The notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 invoked Section 17 (4) of the Act directing that the provisions of Section 5A will not be applicable to the acquisition of the land. The notification under Section 6 was published on 5/7.4.1989 and the notice under Section 9 was given on 9.8.1989. The award was made on 29.4.1989.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged both the notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act, and Section 6 of the Act and have prayed for directions to the respondents not to dispossess them on the ground that the land was neither waste or arable, and that the petitioners' right to be heard under Section 5-A before the acquisition of the land has been illegally taken away. There was no public purpose to acquire the land. The acquisition of the land has also been challenged on the ground that the petitioners are Bhumidhars of Plot No. 2286 (area 280 links). There are constructions of houses and trees on the land and that in similar circumstances, plot No. 2287 was not acquired, causing hostile discrimination between the petitioners and the land owners of plot No. 2287.

(3.) We have heard Shri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.