SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are brothers, have come up with a prayer to quash the Notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition by filing it on 10-1-1983. This writ petition was admitted on the very next day i. e. on 11-1-1983 and notices were issued directing that in the meantime the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute detailed in Paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of the writ petition.

(2.) THE grounds taken by them are that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act were incorrectly invoked, that there was neither any urgency nor was any reasonable ground for dispensing with the inviting of objections under Section 5-A of the Act; that there were no material before the State on the basis of which the Gover nor could form an opinion that the lands in question were required urgently for con structing Ganj-Distributory; that there has been a discrepancy between the two Notifications in question; that under the U. P. Rural Development (Regulation of Land) Act, 1958 the land was earlier requi sitioned which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1414 of 1982 in which the operation of the Notification of requisition was stayed; and that on plot No. 182 of village Sultanpur they have constructed Samadhi as per the directions of the Will on death of their father.

(3.) IN regard to the statement made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, which was originally typed as paragraph 8, and which was not initiated by the Oath Commis sioner, the following facts have been stated in Paragraph 7 of the Counter-Affidavit:- "that the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition are not admitted. IN reply, it is stated that the Governor after examining the facts and circumstances of the case gave his consent to Section 5-A. The minor channel was required to be constructed immediately, hence the powers under Section 17 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act were exercised. " 5. 1. IN regard to the statement made in Paragraph 7 of the writ petition, which was originally typed as Paragraph 9, and which, too, does not contain any initial of the Oath Commissioner, the following reply has been furnished in Paragraph 8 of the Counter- Affidavit:- "that the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not admitted. IN reply, it is stated that it is true that the stay order was passed by this Hon'ble Court on 11-1-1983 but the possession had already been taken on 21 -11-1981. It is stated that the orders of this Hon'ble Court was exparte and the same was obtained by the petitioner by concealing the material facts. " 5. 2. IN other paragraphs of the counter-affidavit it has been stated, inter alia, that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the petitioners constructed Samadhi on plot No. 182 according to the directions in the Will of their father on his death; that the possession of the land in question was taken on 22-11- 1981 under the Land Ac quisition Act but on the basis of the stay order granted by this Hon'ble Court the petitioners again took possession, the in ference drawn about the non-existence of the urgency is denied and the work had to be stopped owing to the stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Writ Petition No. 1414 of 1982 filed against the orders passed in requisition case; and that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, without any merit and no ground has been made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia.