S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Prabhat Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, through its President Uma Shankar Pandey challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 28-3 1987 and 31-12-1987 At the admission stage, counsel put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and have opposed the writ petition. We have consequently heard Sri S. P. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. P. Goel, Addl, Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 7. The Addl. Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable and consequently; liable to be dismissed in limine.
(2.) THE facts which have given rise to the present petition are briefly as follows: The properly In dispute is premises no. 24 Muir Road, Allahabad. One Lalji Tandon, respondent no. 7. is admittedly the lessee of the land as well as the owner and landlord of the bungalow situate in the said premises. On 15-4-1986, the petitioner Society entered into an agreement of sale with respondent no. 7, Lalji Tandon by virtue of which Lalji Tandon agreed to sell and the petitioner agreed to purchase the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs, 43,00,020/- on the terms mentioned in the said agreement. Clause 2 of the agreement recited that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. One Lakh, and he has further paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- at the time of the registration of the agreement Clause 3 of the agreement provided that the petitioner will pay the second instalment of Rs. ten lakh within three months from the date of the agreement. The third instalment of Rs. ten lakh was to be paid within three months after the payment of the second instalment and the payment of forth instalment of Rs. ten lakh was to be paid within three month of the payment of the third Instalment. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,75,020/- was to be paid within three months of the fourth instalment. The agreement in fact was that the total sale consideration was to be paid within one year of the agreement. It Is not disputed that the petitioner only paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per clause 2 of the agreement but did not pay any further instalment as stipulated in the agreement.
(3.) ON 28-3-1987, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 sub-clause (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose of establishing a residential colony under the planned development scheme by the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad. By the said notification, the State of U. P. further directed that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not be applicable in view of the urgency of the matter as the land is being acquired for a housing colony which was urgently required in the city of Allahabad. This notification was subsequently followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act on 31-12-1987. The notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were challenged by Lalji Tandon the lessee of the land and owner of the bungalow by way of, first, making representations before the State Government and, thereafter, by filing writ petition no. 7348 of 1988 Lalji Tandon v. District Magistrate and others in which this Court stayed the eviction of Lalji Tandon in pursuance of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Prior to the filing of the above mentioned writ petition, the lease of the land in question had expired on 10-5-1987. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, U. P. directed the District Magistrate, Allahabad to renew the lease in favour of Lalji Tandon vide his order dated 31-12-1987. Since this lease was not renewed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, Lalji Tandon filed another writ petition in this Court being writ petition no. 1551 of 1990 for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to renew the lease in his favour in respect of the disputed plot. This petition was ultimately heard by a Bench of this Court which allowed the same on 30-7-1991 and issued a writ of mandamus to the respondents of the said petition to renew the lease in respect of the land In dispute within a period of three months from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of the order of the High Court.;