Back
1989 Supreme(All) 496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. N. MISRA, G. D. DUBEY
RAM GOPAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 1590 Of 1989
Decided On : 10/23/1989
S.RAVI KANTH
The court interpreted and applied various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including Sections 4, 5A, 6(2), and 17(1) and (4), to determine the validity of the acquisition proceedings and address the issues raised by the petitioners.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - SEQUENCE - DISPENSING WITH INQUIRY - URGENCY - DISCRIMINATION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 4, 5A, 6(2) AND 17(1) AND (4) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings of their plot for the construction of a new market yard for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, alleging improper publication of the notification, lack of urgency, and discrimination in excluding certain portions of other plots.
Finding of the Court:
1. The sequence of publication of the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is not prescribed, and the last date of publication and public notice determines the date of publication of the declaration. 2. The Government's decision to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was justified due to the urgent need for the new market yard, considering the congested conditions of the old site and the growth of population. 3. The petitioners failed to prove mala fide on the part of the Government in acquiring their land. 4. The Mandi Samiti had no authority to release a portion of the acquired land, and fresh steps could be taken for possession of the remaining land. 5. The petitioners' claim of discrimination was not tenable as they had constructed buildings housing oil expeller machines after the Mandi Samiti refused to grant permission for such constructions.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the notification under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was proper. 2. Whether the Government was justified in dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. 3. Whether there was mala fide on the part of the Government in acquiring the petitioners' land. 4. Whether the Mandi Samiti had the authority to release a portion of the acquired land. 5. Whether the petitioners were discriminated against in the acquisition process.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and held that the sequence of publication of the notification and public notice is not prescribed, and the last date of publication determines the date of publication of the declaration. 2. The court considered the preamble and objectives of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964, and the affidavit of an official from the Land Acquisition office to establish the urgency of the new market yard, thereby justifying the dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. 3. The court found no evidence of mala fide on the part of the Government in acquiring the petitioners' land, as the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof. 4. The court held that the Mandi Samiti lacked the authority to release a portion of the acquired land and that fresh steps could be taken for possession of the remaining land. 5. The court rejected the petitioners' claim of discrimination, considering that they had constructed buildings after the Mandi Samiti refused permission, and that the resolution to release certain portions of other plots was not applicable to their case.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings was dismissed with costs.
( 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 petitioners case.
( 4 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force at all. In this respect we may look into the very wordings of S. 6 (2) of the Act. It reads as under: (2) Every declaration shall be published in the official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.
( 5 ) IT was rightly argued by the learned standing counsel that the words "the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice" occurring in sub-sec. (2) of S. 6 quoted above is self speaking that there is no particular prescribed order of these publications. The three modes of publications and public notice could be in any order. The only requirement of this sub-section is that the last date of such publication and giving of the notice whichever is later will be the date of publication of the declaration. In this way the petitioners cannot be said to have been p
