LORD MAHADEV TRUST Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-5-18
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 02,2012

Lord Mahadev Trust, E -95 -A,Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, through its Trustee Dr. M.C. Gupta - Petitioner Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttaranchal and three others - Respondents Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- (1) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings, notification and declaration dated 20-05-2003 and 16-06-2003, issued by respondent No.1, contained as Annexure No.3 and 5 respectively to the writ petition. (2) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hand over the possession of the property of the petitioner to the petitioner and not to create any hindrance in the smooth and peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in question. (3) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (4) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case, according to petitioner, are that the petitioner is a registered trust created on 30-05-1997. The petitioner purchased land for running the software training institute and for starting new technical institution offering diploma or under graduate decree, and submitted application to All India Council for Technical Education, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, New Delhi. On 6-7-2000 the All India Council for Technical Education wrote to the petitioner that the proposal of the petitioner to approve the course for the year 2000-2001 is not granted and further it was informed that the application of the petitioner can be considered for the year 2001-2002 and to furnish the information by 18-8-2000. During the pendency of these proceedings, U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 was enacted by the Parliament and the State of Uttaranchal was formed on 9-11-2000 and Dehradun became the capital of the State. The further case of the petitioner is that after purchasing the house No. 23, Lakshmi Road, Dehradun, applied for the mutation in the office of Nagar Nigam, Dehradun and the house was mutated and the information of mutation of house in the name of petitioner was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 1-12-1999. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner trust is engaged in providing and promoting the educational activities having various institutions in 16 cities and is also running Rai University and in furtherance of aforesaid view the petitioner purchased property numbered as 23, Lakshmi Road Dehradun having the area of 4,061.33 squire meters ( 5 Bighas and 2 Biswas) on 1.4.1999 by means of a registered sale deed for an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs and for registration of the said sale deed Rs. 5 lakhs were also paid by the petitioner as stamp duty. The property in question was requisitioned by the respondents in a most illegal and arbitrary manner even without issuing and serving any notice on the petitioner and no publication was made in that regard.
(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition no. 165 of 2002 challenging the requisition on various grounds. The Hon ble High Court vide order dated 6-5-2003 directed the respondents either to hand over the possession to the petitioner within ten days or to acquire the same under the Land Acquisition Act. On 20-05-2003 the notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the Act), has been issued by the respondents and in the said notification the provisions contained under Section 17(4) of the Act have been invoked and the right to file objection as provided under Section 5(A) of the Act has been taken away. It is alleged by the petitioner that the impugned notification dated 20-5-2003 cannot be said to have been issued in the public interest as the opening of an office cannot be termed to be public interest as against the opening and running of an educational institution. It is further case of the petitioner that provisions contained under Section 17(4) of the Act are to be invoked in case of urgency and the declaration under Section 6 is to be made immediately after the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.
(3.) Further the acquisition in the case at hand has been made on the dictates of Director Koshagar Evam Vitta Sevayen Uttaranchal as is evident from the letter dated 8-5-2003 and the acquisition cannot be said to be in public purpose. It is also alleged by the petitioner that since the respondents are already in possession of property in question since 11-5-2001, therefore, there was no occasion for invoking the urgency clause provided in Section 17(4) of the Act. Further despite invoking the urgency clause as provided under Section 17(4) of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 has been issued only on 16-6- 2003, while the notification under Section 4 was issued on 20-5-2003 and this aspect of the matter clearly shows that the provisions of Section 17(4) have been invoked in a most illegal and arbitrary manner only with a view to snatch away the right to object as provided under Section 5(A) of the Act and therefore the impugned exercise apart from being illegal also suffers from the vice of colorable exercise of power.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.