- (1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Society having been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. The Society required land for certain pur poses and it accordingly moved the Collec tor, Mathura for acquisition of 28.94 acres of land. Subsequent thereto, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 1st May, 1965. An inquiry under Sec tion 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was held and objections were filed. While these objections were pending, Babulal Sharma respondent No. 6 filed a writ petition No. 1842 of 1966 challenging the acquisition. The petition was rejected on the 20th May, 1966 by a Bench consisting of Hon'ble W. Broome and Satish Chandra, JJ. In the meantime, the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was concluded and thereafter the matter was considered by the Land Acquisi tion Committee which gave approval for the acquisition sometime in March, 1968. Inas much as the acquisition was for the Society and agreement between the State Govern ment and the Society in respect of land to be acquired was signed in November, 1968. Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the above acquisition was published in the U. P. Gazette of the 4th January, 1969. This led to another round of litigation, by way of a writ petition No. 587 of 1969. In this petition Babulal Sharma again figured as one of the petitioners along With a number of other persons. A stay order was granted staying delivery of pos session, but the writ petition was ultimately dismissed on the 22nd April, 1970. Subse quently, an award was given on the 29th May, 1970. Compensation was awarded to 30 persons. The majority of the persons whose land was acquired accepted the award but some have filed references under Section 18 of the Act. On the 1st June, 1970, the Naib Tahsildar went on the spot and deli vered possession to the Society. A true copy of this Dakhalnama is Annexure 'B' to the petition.
(2.) IT seems that the acquisition was not to the liking of certain residents of the locality and obstructions were being put in the way of the petitioner from starting constructions. An incident took place on the 13th June, 1970 in respect of which a First Information Report was lodged. It is alleged by the peti tioners that a large number of persons in stigated by Babulal Sharma and others came on the spot where the construction was in progress and beat a number of persons. A case in respect of this incident is said to be pending before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 307, I.P.C. and the matter is still undecided. It appears that subsequent to this, representations were made to the State Government regarding the acquisition, Wherein it was requested that further pro ceedings in the acquisition may be stayed and allegations were also made that the land Was not being used for the purpose for Which it was acquired. It is averred by the petitioners that directions were issued by Sri Lakshmi Shanker Yadav, the Minister concerned on the 7th June, 1970 which was later on confirmed by a D. O. letter dated llth June, 1970, that further action relating to the acquisition be stayed. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application under Sec tions 107/117, Cr. P. C. against Babulal Sharma and 18 other persons and a report thereof was called from the Station Officer, Police Station, Goyerdhan, but he made a report that there is an apprehension of breach of peace from the side of Babulal only and not from the side of the petitioners. On the 4th August, 1970 Babulal Sharma filed a writ petition No. 3587 of 1970 challenging the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 18th June, 1969, rejecting an application purported to have been made by him under Section 49 of the Act and the order passed on the review ap plication made by him. This petition was, however, rejected summarily on that very date. It. seems that the petitioners were be ing perpetually harassed by the local resi dents, including Babulal Sharma and as such they filed three suits being Suits Nos. 456 of 1970, 484 of 1970 and 591 of 1970 in the Civil Court and interim injunctions were also granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the peti tioners. While these proceedings were going on, the parties fought out the matter in the Revenue Court. A mutation application moved on behalf of the Society for mutation of name of the Society was contested by Babulal Sharma and a number of other per sons. An order for mutation in favour of the petitioner No. 1 was passed on the 12/16th February, 1972. In the meantime, the Co-operative Minister seems to have sent an order to the District Magistrate, Mathura to complete the entire proceedings for the acquisition which may not have been completed till then. This order has been quoted in para 69 of the petition and its authenticity has been admitted. The petitioners seem to have become apprehensive about safety of their person and property by now and applications were made to the District Magistrate, Mathura for being given police aid to help in raising a barbed wire fencing around the acquired land on payment of charges. The petitioners also deposited certain sums of money for that aid. This was done on the 23rd May, 1971 and it is averred that the petitioner put up barbed wire over about 18.94 acres of land with police help but no sooner the police left the place the wire etc. were pul led out. A report of this incident was lodg ed by the petitioners and, thereafter on the 27th May, 1971 the police reached the spot again and the fencing was completed by the petitioners. Subsequent to this, it has been alleged that the barbed wire fencing was again pulled down by Babulal Sharma and others and a report in writing was made on the 10th October, 1971. A report in respect of this incident was sent by the police in connection with the application which was moved by Babulal Sharma, for bail and this has been filed as Annexure 'J' to the petition and it appears that the case set up by the petitioners was vindicated in the report. The petitioners had deposited money for police aid for three days. This had been accepted and a receipt has been issued to the petitioners, but as has been noticed police aid was given to the peti tioners for making constructions and setting up barbed wire fencing only for two days and, thereafter, it is averred in the petition that, the petitioners approached the Super intendent of Police for being granted police aid for a day more but no action was taken.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioners, began levelling the acquired site and cutting down certain trees, but this was stopped by the Station Officer, Police Station, Goverdhan on 17th August, 1971. This fact is, however, denied in the counter-affidavit. The opposite parties were, however, still agitating and making representations to the State Government and the petitioners went and saw the Co-operative Minister in this connection in September, 1971. On the 13th September, 1971, the Co-operative Minister issued a telegraphic order, dated 19th Au gust, 1971 to the District Magistrate, Ma-thura directing him to stay proceedings in respect of the land acquired for the society and further that the tenants who were in possession of the land should not be evict ed. On the 14th October, 1971, the peti tioners averred, an attempt was made by Babulal Sharma and others to take forcible possession of the land and as a result the petitioners sent a telegram and application to a large number of persons including the Chief Minister, Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and District Magistrate, Mathura and Superin tendent of Police. A true copy of the tele gram and application have been annexed as Annexure 'B' to the petition. No action, it is averred, was taken on these complaints. Apart from the Co-operative Minister hav ing passed an order for staying further pro ceedings in the acquisition matter, the Dis trict Magistrate, Mathura also passed an order on the 19th October, 1971 to the effect that such parties as are in possession of the land should keep possession.;