K. N. Seth, J. - (1.) THIS appeal aris es out of proceedings for the acquisi tion of about 67 bighas (1, 73, 677 square yards) of land situate within the Muni cipal limits of Ghaziabad. A resolution was passed by the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad. on 12th October. 1941 to acquire the aforesaid land for the im provement and expansion of Ghaziabad town. This resolution was not given effect to due to various conflicting forces working within the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board again pass ed a resolution on 15th February. 1946 for the acquisition of the aforesaid land under Sections 8 (1) (a) and 117 of the U. P. Municipalities Act and a notifica tion dated 18th December. 1946 under Section 4_ of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette dated 21st December, 1946. The notifications under Sections 6 and 17 were published in the Gazette dated 15th March. 1947 and pos session of the land was taken on 5th February. 1948.
(2.) THE appellant society was re gistered under the Registration of So cieties Act and the certificate of Cor poration was issued on 28th August, 1945. One of the objects of the Society was to acquire land, buildings and other properties by purchase, lease, mortgage, exchange or other means and for resale for Town Planning, building etc. with this object in view the Cor poration purchased that very land for which the Board had initiated acquisi tion proceedings. The Corporation plan ned a housing scheme with roads, parks etc. Objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were filed re garding the amount of compensation treating the land as a potential build ing site. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 1st April. 1949 allow ing compensation to the objectors at the agricultural rates. The claimants then made an application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for determination of the Court. The claim was resisted by the State of U. P. on the ground that the land acquired had no potential value as a building site and was purely agricultural land in possession of the occupancy tenants and the compensation awarded on the mar ket value of the land according to the use to which the land was put at the date of the publication of the notifica tion under Section 4 of the Land Ac quisition Act was a valid one.
(3.) THE learned District Judge held that the land was validly acquired under Section 8 (11) (a) of the U. P. Municipalities Act and that the land when acquired was quite unfit for build ing purpose and had no special value. It was conceded that if Section 8 (1) (a) of the Municipalities Act applied to the facts of the case, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Offi cer was adequate. The learned District Judge accordingly dismissed the refer ence giving rise to the present appeal.;