A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) IN the heart of the town, there is a site No. 26 Civil Station comprising two Hotels and some residential houses belonging to the petitioners, besides 32 to 35 dwelling units in possession of the petitioners' -tenants. Two notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the acquisition of this site for the construction of a Market Complex in the posh locality of Civil Lines, Allahabad, have led to the filing of this petition with the prayer that the same (notifications) be quashed. The essential facts lie within a narrow compass. So does the controversy raise in the petition which is substantially covered by two or three decisions of the Supreme Court to which we will revert a little latter. First the essential facts: The Allahabad Development Authority ("the A.D.A." hereafter for short) appears to have been in the lookout of a suitable site for the construction of a Market Complex at Civil Lines, Allahabad. It finally appears to have set its sight on the disputed premises. The axe thereafter fell on the petitioners with the issue of a notification dated 22 -1 -1986 under Section 4(1) of the said Act stating that the disputed land is needed for the purposes of the establishment of "Commercial District Centre" under the Planned Development Scheme in the district of Allahabad by the A.D.A. The notification also contained a declaration that inasmuch as there was a pressing urgency for the establishment of Commercial District Centre under the Planned Development Scheme in district Allahabad it was necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act and that consequently it is being further directed under sub -section (4) of Section 17 that the provisions of Section 5 -A of the Act shall not apply. This notification was published in the extra -ordinary Gazette of Uttar Pradesh on the same date viz. 22 -1 -1986.
(2.) THE above notification was followed by another notification dated 21 -1 -1986 published in the extra -ordinary Gazette of Uttar Pradesh of the same date stating that in continuation of the notification referred to above the Governor was pleased to declare under Section 6 of the Act that he was satisfied that the land in question was needed for a public purpose, namely, the establishment of Commercial District Centre under the planned development scheme in district Allahabad by the A.D.A. It was further stated that in view of the urgency the Governor has directed that the Collector of Allahabad may on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) take possession of the land though no award under Section 11 has been made. Immediately on coming to know of these notifications the petitioners rushed to this Court and presented this petition on 6 -3 -1986. The notifications were initially assailed on diverse grounds which need not be elaborated here in view of the fact that the petition is entitled to succeed on some preliminary points arising out of subsequent developments. Entertaining the petition, this Court issued an interim order on the same date viz. 6 -3 -1986 restraining the respondents from taking further action, consequent upon the impugned notifications. The case remained pending here for soma time during which affidavits were exchanged between the parties.
(3.) IN November 1989, the petitioner moved an application for the amendment of the petition attacking the notifications on additional grounds the chief among which was that mandatory provisions of sub -section (1) of Section 4 had not been followed by the A.D.A. by publishing the notification in two daily newspapers or by causing public notice by the Collector of the substance of the notification to be given at any convenient places in the locality as a consequence of which the entire exercise for acquisition was rendered void and ineffectual. The second ground of attack was that the declaration under Section 6 having been made on 24 -1 -1986 before the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1), there was a patent breach of Section 17(4). After hearing counsel for the parties, the amendment application was allowed on 22 -2 -1990.;