JUDGEMENT
G.P.Mathur, J. -
(1.) These writ petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution have been
filed for quashing of the notifications issued
under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Both the writ petitions seek quashing of the same notifications and, therefore,
they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The State Government issued a notification dated 20.5.1996 under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring certain land
in village Bhiwai, Pargana Shikohabad, District Firozabad for the purpose of construction
of a market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, Sirsaganj in district Firozabad under a
planned development scheme. This was followed by another notification dated
27.12.1997 under Section 6 of the Act. There
is a recital in the notification under Section 4
that the Governor, being of the opinion that
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of
the Act are applicable inasmuch as the land
was urgently required for construction of market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Sirsaganj in district Firozabad under a planned
development scheme, and, that in view of the
pressing urgency it was necessary to eliminate
the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. A direction was
issued under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of
the Act that the provisions of Section 5-A of
the Act shall not apply. The notification under
Section 6 contained a direction to the Collector of
Firozabad under sub-section (1) of Section 17 to take
possession of the land on expiration of fifteen days from the date
of publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1)
of Section 9 though no award under Section
11 had been made.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the State Government bad
acted illegally in exercising powers under Section 17(4) and in dispensing with the enquiry
under Section 5-A of the Act. Learned counsel has also urged that there was no material
before the State Government to show that it
was a case of extreme urgency wherein provisions of Section 17(1)
of the Act may be applicable. It is urged that the construction of a
market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Sirsaganj, was not such a purpose which could
be described as extremely urgent where the
State Government could not wait for an enquiry as contemplated by Section 5-A of the
Act.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.