N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) The appellant instituted a writ petition challenging notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in regard to certain land belonging to it which was sought to be acquired. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Hence this special appeal has been filed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the notification under Section 4 an extract of which has been filed as annexure A to the writ petition. We have perused the original notification from the relevant gazette. The notification is No. 2138-H/ XXXVII-50 (26)-H-59 dated July 16, 1960, published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated July 23, 1960. At the bottom of the notification is to be found; "For what purpose - For planned development of the area. Note - A plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Meerut." It was urged that the notification did not contain sufficient particulars to enable the appellant to find out the exact nature of the public purpose for which the petitioner's land was sought to be acquired. In the writ petition it was stated that the appellant in the fourth week of November, 1964 met the authorities concerned and wanted to know the plan under which the land was bring acquired. The Special Land Act Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad told the appellant that he had no plan with him under which the land was being acquired. The appellant wanted to know about the planned development which was intended to be carried out over the land belonging to it, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer showed his inability and admitted that he had no plan which could be shown to the appellant, Subsequently, an application was made for amendment of the writ petition. In paragraph 7 of the said application it was specifically stated that different notifications published under Section 6 from time to time clearly indicate that the State Government did not have any specific scheme of development at the time when it published its notification under Sec. 4; nor did it have any idea as to whether the land would be utilised by it or would be utilised for purposes of the U. P. State Industrial Corporation Ltd., or the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad. A counter-affidavit was filed in reply to the said application and paragraph 5 of the said counter-affidavit is relevant which contains a reply to the averments in paragraph 7 referred to above. Even though in the said paragraph it has been stated that a master plan had been prepared under the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, but it has not been stated that the master plan had been prepared and was available for inspection not the appellant on the date when the notification under Section 4 was issued. This very notification was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 2356 of 1968 connected with Civil Appeals Nos. 1139, 1140, 1475, 1476 and 1785 of 1971 and 1880 of 1970 decided on August 23, 1972. From a perusal of the said judgment it appears that the authorities concerned were unable to satisfy even the Supreme Court that the master-plan had been prepared, and was in existence on the date when the notification under Section 4 was issued. It was held : "As already noticed in the notification under Section 4 all that was stated was that the land was required for "planned development of the area." There was no indication whatsoever whether the development was to be of residential and building sites, or of commercial and industrial plots; nor was it possible for any one interested in the land sought to be acquired to find out what kind of planned development was under contemplation, i.e., whether the land would be acquired and the development made by the Government, or whether the owner of properties would be required to develop a particular area in a specified way. If the master plan which came to be sanctioned on September 4, 1962 had been available for inspection by the persons interested in filing objections, or even if the knowledge of its existence on the part of the appellants had been satisfactorily proved, the position may have been different." It was further held that after the insertion of Sec. 5-A in the Land Acquisition Act by Amending Act No. 38 of 1923, the position had completely changed and it cannot be said that the owner's wishes are not relevant and that he did not need an opportunity to file his objections. To take such a view would render Sec. 5-A otiose. If it has any purpose and if it has to be given its full effect, the person interested in the land proposed to be acquired must have an opportunity to submit his objections and that he can do only if the notification under Sec. 4(1) while mentioning the public purpose, gives some definite indication or particulars of the said purpose, which would enable the person concerned to object effectively if he so desired. In the absence of such a specific or particular purpose being stated, the objector cannot file any proper or cogent objection under Sec. 5-A which he has a right to do under that provision. In this view of the matter the notification under Section 4 was held to be bad for vagueness and indefiniteness. The observations made in the aforesaid case fully apply to the facts of the present case, the relevant notification under Section 4 being the same.
(3.) We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and quash the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the appellant. The appellant will be entitled to its costs. Appeal allowed.;