SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come up with prayers to (i) quash the notification dated 5-4-95 published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as con tained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition; and (ii) command the respondents not to give effect to the aforementioned notifica tion as well as the notification published under Section 6 of the Act during the pen dency of this writ petition and dispossess them on the basis thereof.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Plot No. 236 in Mauza (village) Vrindavan Bangar, Tehsil and District Mathura measures 6. 57 Acres of land in all. Out of the aforemen tioned area 6. 15 Acres of lands were ac quired earlier under the provisions of the Act for public purpose by the State for respondent No. 4 - the Mathura Develop ment Authority for the purposes of con-sir acting residential houses in a planned way which was challenged by the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 by filing CM. Writ Petition No 20364 of 1991 which was dis missed vie! order dated 15-4-92 and S. L. P. Nos. 5701 and 5702 of 1993 before the Supreme Court, were also dismissed vide order dated 27-9-1993. According to the petitioners the lands are sought to be ac quired malafide. This land is agricultural in nature capable of producing two crops in a year which is their only holding and if acquired they will be rendered landless. No notice was published as mandatorily re quired. THE notification under Section 6 was also made illegally which was not pub lished. No step as yet has been taken by respondent No. 4 to make construction. According to the respondents as the remaining 42 decimals of land was left out inadvertently, hence notification under Section 4 was published followed by another notification under Section 6of the Act. THE statements made by the petitioners in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that there was non-publication of the notices in the official Gazette or in the local papers is false. THE notification dated 21-12-1994 under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 21-12-1994 which is apparent from the copy ap pended as Annexure CA-4. Even a cor rigendum was published in the Gazette dated 5-4-95 a copy of which has been appended as Annexure CA-5. THE notification dated 21-12-94 was also pub lished in two daily news papers Dainik Rajpath and Dainik Jagaran dated 6-1-95 and 7-1-95 respectively. THE corrigendum notification dated 5-4-95 was also publish ed in two daily news papers Dainik Jagaran and Amar Ujala dated 8-9-95 and 9-9-95 respectively. THE substance of the public notice was also notified in the locality on 13-11-95. Similarly declarations under Section 6 of the Act were also made by publication in the Gazette and two news papers fully mentioned in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit. It has also been stated that the Governor being satis fied that it was a case of emergency, the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were invoked and thereafter a publication notice was given under Section 9 (1) of the Act on 13-7-96 and possession of the land in question was handed over to respondent No. 4 on 1 -8-96 who had already deposited a sum of about two lacs with the Special Land Acquisition Officer towards the compensation to be awarded. A repre sentation on behalf of the petitioners was also submitted to the State Government as contained in Annexure CA-8 in regard to which a detailed reply dated 6-3-96 was sent by the Vice-Chairman of respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure CA-9 and thereafter the State Government rejected that representation made on behalf of the petitioners and a communication dated 25-4-96, as (sic ).

(3.) IN our view no interference is re quired by this Court.