JAGANNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners, who claim to be the owners of a piece of land situated within the limits of the Gwalior Municipal Corporation, seek a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued by the Government on 6th November 1965 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and published in the Gazette dated 19th November 1965 with regard to the acquisition of the land belonging to the applicants for the purpose of constructing a dispensary. The notification also directed that section 5 -A of the Act shall not apply in respect of the said land as in the opinion of the Government section 17 (1) of the Act applied to the land. This notification was followed by another notification under section 6 of the Act published in the Gazette dated 8th April 1966. The notification under section 6 directed the Collector under section 17 (1) of the Act to take possession of the land on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9 (1). A writ of certiorari has been sought also for quashing the notification issued under section 6.

(2.) THE only ground which Shri A.R. Choube, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged before us was that the land in the present case was neither west land nor arable land and consequently the provisions of sub -section (1) and sub -section (4) of section 17 could not be invoked in respect of the land and the Government had no power to direct that section 5 -A of the Act shall not apply and that possession of the land shall be taken on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice under section 9 (1). Learned counsel contended that the direction of the Government about the inapplicability of section 5 -A of the Act deprived toe applicants of their valuable right of objecting to the acquisition of the land, of being heard in the enquiry under section 5 -A and of satisfying the acquiring authority that the proposed acquisition of the land was not justified or legal.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that this application must be granted. Sub -sections (1) and (4) of section 17 of the Act are as follows: - 17. Social powers in cases of urgency: -