BRIJ BHUSHAN GOSWAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the planned Industrial Development in district Mathura through the Uttar Pradesh State, Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification dated 14-10-1988 under S.4 read with S.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This notification was published in the U. P. Gazette Extra Ordinary of 15-10-1988 and was also published in two Daily newspapers of Hindi on 12-11-1988 and 30-11-1988. By this notification large number of plots including three plots of the petitioner were proposed to be acquired for the aforesaid purpose. As the Government was of the opinion that the provisions of S.17(1) of the Act were applicable to the said land, as it was required urgently for the Planned Industrial Development in district Mathura, it directed to disperse with the inquiry under S.5A of the Act. The Government, on 1-4-1989 issued the notification under S.6 of the Act. Thereafter notices were issued to the petitioner on 19-6-1989.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 14-10-1988 under S.4, notification dated 1-4-1989 under S.6 and notices dated 19-4-1989 under S.9(3) of the Act. The petitioner has primarily challenged the notification under S.4 of the Act on the ground that inquiry under S.5A of the Act should not have been dispensed with, as it was not a case of urgency. The petitioner has supported this argument on the following three grounds; (1) correspondence and negotiation before the notification under S.4 of the Act, (ii) gap of time between the notifications under Ss.4 and 6 of the Act and (iii) Planned Industrial Development is an ordinary purpose, and as such S.17(4) of the Act should not be applied.

(3.) From the perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the Uttar Pradesh State, Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., was negotiating with the villagers in question from 1985-87 and was also making correspondence with the State for necessary notifications under the Act Petitioner's contention is that about a year has been wasted in negotiation and correspondence before the notification under S.4 of the Act, as such it cannot be said that the matter of acquisition was of any urgency. We cannot agree with this submission. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1984 SC 1721 has laid down that pre-notification delay would not render invocation of urgency provisions bad and illegal.