RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the acquisition proceedings of the plot belonging to the petitioner situated in village Rampur district Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) The petitioners have alleged that they are owner of plot No.107 situated mentioned above. They had constructed a big hall. In this hall they had installed an oil expeller after spending huge money. The Mandi Samiti of the locality had made proposal for acquisition of the land in dispute alongwith the other plots in 1981. The matter, however, proceeded at a snails speed. Later on a notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) was issued on 25th Jan., 1988. A notification under S.6 of the Act was published in official gazettee on 10th of June, 1988. It is an admitted fact that the proclamation of the substance of the notification by the collector Saharanpur in the locality was made on 4th July, 1988. The notification under S.6 was published in two local newspapers' Badri Vishal' and Vishwa Manav on 3rd Dec., 1988. The possession of plots was taken on 16th Dec., 1988. It is an admitted fact that the possession was taken over only on a portion of the plot bearing no.107, 108 and 11O. The portion shown by red colour in the map appended to the affidavit as Annexure 8 was left and the possession of the same was not taken.

(3.) The petitioner has contended that the acquisition proceeding suffers from three infirmities. Firstly, the publication was not done in proper sequence. According to the petitioner the publication in the local newspaper ought to have - preceded the proclamation by the collector of the substance of the notification in the locality. The second point was that the notification under S.6 does not explain that the Government had applied its mind in dispensing with the inquiry under S.5A of the Act. It was further pointed out that the whole matter by the Government was dealt with in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. There was legal mala fide on the part of the Government. Lastly, it was contended that a portion of the land of the petitioners which was covered by the building containing expeller ought to have been excluded as had been done in other cases of plot Nos.108, 109 and 110 of the village. It was urged that there had been discrimination in the dealing of the matter relating to the petitioner's case.