- (1.) BY The Court.- BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, their officials, servants and agents not to demolish any existing constructions over his land in plot no. 155 and 156 in village in question in district Hardoi and not to dispossess him from the land in question and not to cut trees or cause damage to his property.
(2.) U, P. Avas evam Vikash Parishad opposite party issued a notification u/Sec. 28 of U. P. Avas evam Vikash Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (herein-after referred to as the Adhiniyam) for acquiring 100 acres of land in Nagheta Bhumf Vikash evam Grah Asthan Yojna, Hardoi which was published in U. P. Gazette and newspapers also. In the notification only khasra numbers were mentioned and boundary of the area sought to be acquired. Admittedly an area of 2 bigha 16 biswa of khasra no. 155 and 2 bigha of khasra no. 156 was included in the scheme in respect of which notification referred to above was issued. There after various notices were issued u/Sec. 29 of the Adhiniyam to the tenure holders including the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objection even without being served upon the said notice In his objection u/Sec. 30 (2) of Adhiniyam after detailing the facts, the petitioner prayed that his objection may be taken note before finalising the scheme and the objections were not without prejudice to claim compensation. Plot no. 156 has a total area of 1 bigha 17 biswa out of which 4 biswa 10 biswansi falls in non Z.A area and rest 1 bigha 12 biswa 10 biswansis falls in Z.A. area. The petitioner claimed to be owner of 8 biswa 11 1/4 biswansis in non Z.A. area and 4 biswa in Z.A. area. According to opposite parties 9 biswa 5 biswansi land of plot no 155 was recorded in the name of Bhagwan Deen son of Saligram and the name of petitioner had wrongly been recorded by order dated 24-6-1987 which according to opposite party was done after the land vested in Parishad and possession was taken. The name of Bhagwan Deen as entered as Sikmi tenent in clause 9 in the khasra in respect of land of khasra no. 155 and 156 which was entered in the name of Vishnu Narain and Anteryami but in the khasra his name was shown as Shikroi tenent of petitioner in part II. Bhagwan Deen is reported to have died long ago. As per allegations of the petitioner these plots are old groves having several trees of fifty years of age and petitioner's name is mentioned over plot no. 147 which is adjacent and contiguous to plots no. 155 and !56 and the entire land is inclosed by boundary walls. The petitioner has placed on record the valuation report of Major IX. P. Goyal, a Government Gazetted Valuer appointed by Ministry of Finance and Central Board of Direct Taxes which was given to him in the year 1975 and the petitioner have averred that in the said report prepared by Parishad the existence of boundary wall is mentioned. Petitioner has placed on record, the name of various co-sharers of plots no. 155 and 156 who according to him are in separate possession over their shares. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Petitioner's allegation was that his area of plot no. 155 and 156 was never acquired and no notice was ever given to him and plot of other persons were acquired and proceedings went ahead. It was only when opposite parties threat end to demolish petitioner's wall and house, he sent a letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in February, 1985 who vide letter dated 27-7-1985 informed him that land of other persons has been acquired and petitioner's land has not been acquired or transferred. Copy of said letter has been anexed to the writ petition. The award was given on 31-3-1985 by Special Land Acquisition Officer and in the award reference to said khata finds place. In the award it is stated that the lands belonging Bishun Narain and Anteryami have been taken into account which has been acquired and similarly in respect of khasra no. Ill in which plot no. 156 is included, it has been stated that the land belonging to Saraswati Narain had been acquired. Subsequently it appears that a supplementary award was given on 22-9-1986 and from that it appears that some part of petitioner's land has also been included in it. The total area in the supplementary award has been indicated to be 37-13-6 bigha and according to the petitioner this area would not include his land. According to opposite party possession over the land was delivered to Parishad on 7-2-1983. In this supplementary award so far as plot no. 155 is concerned, it has been mentioned that in the record name of Vishnu Narain etc has been mentioned and Bhagwan Deen is shown as Sikmi and the name of Surendra Mohan also finds place over 12 biswa land, possession of which has been taken and compensation in respect of same will be payable. So far as plot no. 156 is concerned, it has been stated that in respect of 16 biswa of land recorded in the names of Ramesh Chandra, Bishun Narain of which Bhagwan Deen is Shikmi tenure holder, compensation will be payable according to law. Petitioner made several representations against the same and prayed that in case land is sought to be acquired then compensation is to be paid to him to the tune of Rupees nine lacs and the opposite parties have no right to prepare supplementary award. Claiming himself to be in possession, he has filed the instant writ petition.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit it has not been denied that any notice before issuance of notification for acquiring the \ land or thereafter was sent to the petitioner. But it has been stated that notice u/Sec. 29 of the Act were issued to various tenure holders. But petitioner's assertion has not been denied that any notice was sent to him. It has also not been denied that he filed objections. It has been stated that intimation was sent on behalf of the Parishad that Niyojan Samiti will hear objections on 4-8-1980. According to the petitioner notice was served on him on 4-8-1980 itself at Delhi and as such it was not possible for him to attend the hearing on that date. Thereafter petitioner sent a letter to the Parishad on 5-8-1980 and prayed that his objection may be taken at Lucknow but that was not done. On the recommendation of Niyoian Samit, it appears a portion of plots no. 155, 156 and 140 into were released. IN the counter affidavit, it has been pleaded that the land which belongs to the petitioner was acquired and rest vested with the Parishad and petitioner was not in possession of the same as Parishad had taken possession of the same as early as in the year 1983 on 7-3-1983 and 20-9-1986. It has been stated that so far as plot no. 155 is concerned, Parishad has acquired 1 1 16 biswa of land and rest has not been acquired as there are old constructions on the same and so far as plot no. 156 is concerned, only 18 biswansi land has been acquired. So far as the letter which was written by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 27-2-1985 to the petitioner is concerned by which he was informed that his land has not been acquired and possession has not been delivered to the parishad, it has been stated that there is no such letter on record of the Parishad. It has also been stated that Parishad has not demolished any boundary wall which might have been inexistence. The petitioner's claim to the effect that before giving supplementary award in which his name figures in relation to plot acquired of which compensation was not paid. There is no denial of the same and same was passed without giving any opportunity of hering to him or that any compensation was tendered or paid to him. There is no explanation as to how the land of the petitioner which has been shown to have been acquired is measuring 37'13-16 biswansis in supplementary award that is the total area of land acquired seems to be belonging to others, recorded with him like Vishnu Narain etc. whose land has been shown as 37.13.6 biswansis which indicates that petitioner's land was not acquired. The land was described by boundary in the relevant notification and it was also mentioned that the map can be seen in the office. Map obviously included plots no. 155 and 156 but the map itself did not indicate as to which particular portion of plots no. 155 and 156 in which there were other co- shares, was acquired. Before publishing first notification it was not necessary that notice should be given to concerned persons but this much is clear that special Land Acquisition Officer, the authority concerned at the spot did intimate the petitioner that so far as his plot is concerned, it has not been acquired and the land of other persons has been acquired. Even if there is no denial of this fact, merely because letter is not available, it cannot be said that no such letter was sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The letter of Special Land Acquisition Officer, was enough to make the petitioner believe that his land has not been acquired. By way of caution, the petitioner filed an objection without getting any notice from which it cannot be said that he was sure that his land was in fact acquired though the petitioner claimed a particular compensation in case acquisition was made. The award which was made did not make any reference to the petitioner by name or that his share of plots no. 155 or 156. No enquiry was made as to whether any boundary in fact was in existence over the land or not. There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act for giving supplementary award. Even if it can be said that supplirnentary award can be given, the same cannot be given, without giving opportunity of hearing to the person affected by it. If supplementary award is taken as part of or in continuation (sic) of the first award then it was incumbent upon the Special Land Acquisition Officer to give opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. Thus the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed a manifest error of law and acted in violation of the prescribed provisions of law and against the principles of natural justice and gave the supplementary award on the back of the petitioner. As such the supplimentary award in so far as it is against the petitioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed.;