Grover, J. - (1.) These appeals from the decision of the Allahabad High Court involve a common point and shall stand disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) It is necessary to state the facts only in C. A. 1888 of 1970. The U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 received the assent of the President on October 8, 1958. On December 10, 1958 a notification was issued by the U. P. Government declaring Ghaziabad a regulated area under S. 3 of the aforesaid Act. In February 1959 the Controlling Authority under S. 4 of the Regulation Act was constituted. On July 16, 1960 a notification was issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government declaring its intention to acquire land measuring about 34,000 acres in fifty villages of Ghaziabad for planned development of the area. On December 23, 1961 a notification was issued under Ss. 6 and 17 of the Acquisition Act in respect of an area of 19.75 acres. This was followed by successive piece-meal notifications on various dates in 1962 and 1963. On February 9, 1962 another notification was issued under S. 4 of the Acquisition Act modifying the earlier notification dated July 16, 1960. By this notification the proposed area from 34,000 acres was reduced to 6158 acres. On July 4, 1962 the appellants made an application to the Special Land Acquisition Officer Ghaziabad for supplying a copy of the scheme of the planned development for which notification under S. 4 had been issued to enable them to make representations at the hearing of the objections filed under S. 5A of the Acquisition Act. It was mentioned inter alia in that application that the Government had not published the scheme of the planned development and without a copy of the scheme for which the notification had been published "no forceful arguments could be submitted". The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the following order on that application: " The scheme of the planned development is not necessary for a notification under S. 4 of the Act, as such, no such scheme of the planned development is available in this office". On September 4, 1962 the State Government sanctioned the Master Plan of Ghaziabad under the Regulation Act. On September 27, 1962 a writ petition was filed by the appellants in the High Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid notifications. Several other writ petitions were also filed by other petitioners. On December 10, 1965 a batch of 39 writ petitions including the appellant's petition were allowed by the High Court and the notifications under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act were quashed on the ground of invalidity of piecemeal notifications. Another batch of writ petitions was similarly allowed quashing the notifications under Sec. 6 of the Acquisition Act on the same ground On February 9, 1966 this court decided in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, (1966) 3 SCR 557 that piecemeal and successive notifications under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act was not permissible. On February 20, 1967 the President of India promulgated the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance No. 1 of 1967. The validity of this Ordinance apart from the legality of the notifications issued was challenged in the High Court by the appellants in February 1967. In April 1967 an Act was passed on the same lines as the Ordinance. The provisions of the Act were also challenged before the High Court by necessary amendment in the writ petitions filed by the appellants. This Court in Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India, (1968) 3 SCR 41 upheld the validity of the Acquisition Amending Act of 1967. On March 26, 1968 the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. In view of the judgment of this court the High Court repelled the contentions of the appellants impugning the validity of the Acquisition Amendment Act 1967. Another point which was agitated before the High Court was that the notification under S. 4 was too vague and afforded no adequate basis for the lodging of objection under S. 5A of the Acquisition Act. Certain other points were raised which need not be mentioned. The High Court observed that all these points had been urged in the writ petition No. 55 of 1963 which had been heard along with many other writ petitions by the Division Bench which, by its judgment dated December 24, 1965, had negatived them. For the reasons mentioned in that judgment these contentions were also repelled.
(3.) Dr. L. M. Singhvi sought to raise a number of points before us but ultimately he confined his arguments mainly to one question. Reference has been made to the notification dated July 16, 1960 issued under S. 4 as also to subsequent notification dated February 9, 1962 amending the earlier notification. The earlier notification to the extent it is material is as follows: " In pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), the Governor of U. P. is pleaded to notify for general in the schedule is likely to be needed for a public purpose. 2. Under Section 5-A of the said Act, any person interested in the land may, within thirty days after the issue of this notification, make an objection to the acquisition of the land for any land in the locality in writing to the Collector, Meerut. ********** ********** For What purpose:For planned development of the area. Note:A plan of the land may be inspected in the office of Collector, Meerut." In the writ petition a specific plea was taken in paras 35 (b) and 36 that no proper, reasonable or effective opportunity was available to the appellants to file any objections under S. 5A of the Acquisition Act inasmuch as the notification gave no indication that different pieces of land would be acquired for different authororities in different circumstances and for different purposes. According to para 36 the appellants did not get any effective or reasonable opportunity of objecting under S. 5A of the Acquisition Act inasmuch as the purpose shown was extremely vague and there was no definite scheme before the State Government at the material time to show how the land would be developed and to what use it would be put. Para 33 of the petition may also be noticed, it is stated that therein that different notifications published under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act from time to time clearly indicated that the State Government did not have any specific scheme of development at the time the notification under S. 4 was published, nor had it any idea as to whether the land would be utilized by it or would be utilized for the purposes of U. P. State Industrial Corporation or the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad. In the return which was filed para 9 contained the reply to para 33 and this is what was stated: " That the allegations made in paragraph 33 of the petition are denied. The scheme for the planned development of the area was there when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued although the scheme at that stage had not been finalised in the details". No reply is to be found in the return to paragraphs 35 (b) and 36 of the writ petition. We may also refer to paragraph 14 of the petition in which the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was reproduced in respect of the applications filed by the appellants for supplying the copy of the scheme of the planned development. It is noteworthy that in the return nothing was said about this order.;