Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification under section 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, Annexure 1 to the writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute. It has also been prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to decide the objections of the petitioner against the proposed amendment of the master plan in Varanasi. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) A notification dated 18.12.2000 Annexure -1 to the petition was issued under section 4 read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. A perusal of the said notification shows that it was proposed to acquire the land in question for building a Transport Nagar by the Varanasi Development Authority, respondent No. 5. The same notification was also published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 31.3.2001 vide Annexure -2 to the writ petition. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is stated that in the Newspaper 'Aaj' dated 4.5.98 there was a publication of notice under section 13(3) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 as amended for amending the master plan of Varanasi, and objections were invited. A true copy of the notification dated 4.5.98 is Annexure -3 to the petition. The proposed amendment was for using the agricultural land of four villages in district Varanasi. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition it is mentioned that two of the petitioners filed objections vide Annexures -4 and 5 to the petition stating that they had land, building and grove on the said land. However, thereafter the notification under section 6 was issued. The petitioner No. 5 submitted an objection before the respondent No. 6 requesting that the Transport Nagar should not be built on the land in dispute as it is agricultural land consisting of trees, residential houses etc. A true copy of the objection is Annexure -9 to the petition. Similar other objections were also filed vide Annexures -10 and 11 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 18 of the petition that no notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued. It is alleged in paragraph 19 that there was no material for holding that there was urgency in the acquisition and hence section 17 was wrongly invoked.
(3.) THE petitioner has also filed an amendment application and it is admitted in paragraph 3 of the same that there is a notification under section 6, which was issued on 9.5.2001, vide Annexure -SA -1 to the application.;