By the Court.—Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel appearing for Allahabad Development Authority, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing notifications dated 21.1.1986 issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1894’) and dated 23.1.1986 issued under Section 6(1) of Act, 1894 proposing to acquire land, bearing Khasra No. 3, area 5 bigha, 7 biswa and 14 biswansi (2 acres i.e. 4591 sq. yard) situate at Civil Station, Chail, Allahabad.

3. The aforesaid notifications were issued at the instance of Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.D.A.’), who required aforesaid land for establishment of “Light Industries and District Commercial Centre” in Allahabad, under Planned Development Scheme. While issuing notification under Section 4(1), State also dispensed with inquiry under Section 5-A by invoking provisions of Section 17(1) & (4) of Act, 1894 and while making declaration under Section 6(1), Government has authorised Collector to take possession of acquired land under Section 17(1) on expiration of 15 days from publication of notice under Section 9(1), even though, award under Section 11 has not been made.

4. Petitioner has set-up its case stating that, Hanumat and Ram Pal Trust, Kalakakar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trust’) is lessee of aforesaid site No. 3 and a major portion of said site is constructed having two buildings, wherein a hotel under the name and style of ‘Royal Hotel’ is working. Petitioner is a tenant in southern portion of acquired land and an area of 1 acre i.e. 1804 sq. yard is in possession of petitioner, pursuant to an allotment order dated 28.11.1950 issued by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.C.E.O.’). The other part of construction includes an annexe of hotel in which three rooms have been constructed. It is also used as part of hotel. Apart from lodging and boarding facility provided to customers, the hotel also houses, offices of Mahabir Finance Company and M/s Ram Mal-Shyam Das, which were carrying on their business in the said premises. The northern portion of site is also occupied to a large extent by constructions and is used as a residential premises by about 30 families. ‘Royal Hotel’ is one of the oldest renowned hotel in Allahabad City and normally has occupancy of 60% throughout the year. It is recognised by Department of Tourist and Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of U.P.

5. The acquisition notifications have been challenged firstly, on the ground that State proposed to acquire land which is ‘Nazul’ and therefore owned by State itself, hence there is no question of acquiring such land, which already belong to State. The tenancy right and super-structure existing on said land have not been sought to be acquired and acquisition notification proposing to acquire land, which already belong to State, is wholly illegal. Secondly, that dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A of Act, 1894 is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as, there is no such urgency, which justify dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A and there is no material justifying the same. Therefore, dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A is patently illegal. Thirdly, that requirement of publication of notification in two newspapers has not been observed. No public notice was issued and for that reason also, acquisition notifications are bad in law.

6. A.D.A. got itself impleaded pursuant to Court’s order dated 20.1.1988 and has filed a counter-affidavit to contest writ petition. It is stated that on 6.2.1985 A.D.A. submitted an application to Collector for acquisition of land in dispute. Lease of land granted to Trust expired on 14.4.1962. Petitioner or anyone else have no right in law to continue in possession of disputed land. It is however admitt