Kamal Narain Singh, J. - (1.) The present petition is directed against an order of the District Land Requisitioning Officer, Bijnor dated 4th January, 1971 whereby he requisitioned petitioner's land having an area of 6 Biswas 10 biswansis u/S. 3 of the UP Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 for purposes of providing pathway for transporting the sugarcane of the cultivators of the area in question to the purchasing centre. The learned counsel has challenged the requisition order on four main grounds. The first contention raised by the learned counsel is that the order of requisition dated 5th of January, 1971, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition is illegal as it does not mention the purpose for which the petitioner's land was requisitioned. The order in question has been passed u/S. 3 of the UP Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 3 of the Act confers power on the requisitioning authority to requisition any land by serving on the owner or occupier thereof an order in writing provided the requisitioning authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so for public purpose. Neither the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder require that public purpose must be mentioned in the order itself. It is, therefore, not necessary to set out the purpose of the requisition in the order itself. No doubt, it is desirable to mention the purpose in the order itself so that the person affected may know the purpose for which the land was acquired, but in its absence the impugned order can not be held illegal - -See State of Bombay v/s. Bhanji Munji ( : AIR 1955 SC 41).
(2.) The learned counsel has urged that the purpose of requisition was not a public purpose. Public purpose has been defined in sub -S. (2) of S. 2 of the Act. U/Cl. (5) of sub -S. (2) State Government is empowered to declare any purpose after publication in the Gazette that the same was essential for the development of agriculture or improvement of the life of Community in Rural Areas. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause 5 of sub -S, (2) of S. 2 issued a notification dated 7th of December, 1951 declaring "the land for a village path and roads" as one of the objects essential for the development of agriculture and improvement of the life of Community in Rural areas. This notification declares that requisitioning of land for laying of village path and roads is a public purpose within the meaning of the Act. In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent the purpose for which the petitioner's land was requisitioned has been disclosed. According to the respondents, a large quantity of sugarcane was lying in the area and for want of a pathway and road the sugarcane could not be transported to the purchasing centers. In the absence of road, the sugarcane was likely to go waste which would not be in public interest. The requisitioning authority, requisitioned the petitioner's land to provide pathway for the transport of cultivator's sugar -cane to the purchasing centre. The village path and road provide facility to the cultivators of the locality, which is essentially a step towards the development of agriculture and improvement of life of community in rural areas. In my opinion, therefore, the purpose disclosed was a public purpose and the order of requisitioning authority is legal and valid.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has then contended that District Planning Officer was not the competent authority to apply for requisitioning the petitioner's land. He has referred to R. 4 which enumerates the authorities which are competent to apply for requisitioning of land. In the impugned order dated 5th January 1971, the requisitioning authority stated that the District Planning Officer, Bijnor has made an application for the requisitioning of the petitioner's land and on consideration of the circumstances the requisitioning authority was of the opinion that it was necessary to requisition the petitioner's land. Thus it appears that the District Planning Officer had made an application before the requisitioning authority for the requisitioning of the petitioner's land. R. 4 of the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Rule, 1948 provides procedure and manner for making an application for requisitioning of land. The Distt. Planning Officer is not mentioned as one of the authorities authorised to make application for requisitioning of land. In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has, however, been asserted in paragraph 24 of the counter -affidavit that clause 1 of proviso to R. 4 has been amended and the District Planning Officer has been prescribed as one of the authorities competent to make an application for requisitioning land under the Act. The petitioner is not in a position to deny this allegation. Under that the District Planning Officer was an officer competent to make an application for the requisitioning of the land, therefore, there is no illegality or defect in the impugned order.;