- (1.) JUDGEMENT This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petition has been filed by fifty petitioners. The first forty-nine petitioners are living in Bungalows Nos. 9 and 11, Bank Road, Allahabad and other outhouses and the petitioner No. 50 is the registered Co-operative Housing Society with its registered office at No. 11, Bank Road, Allahadbad. Some of the petitioners are members of this Cooperative Housing Society. The opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners of the two bungalows. The erstwhile improvement Trust, Allahabad, framed a scheme styled as Bank Road Housing Scheme under S. 36 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act (hereinafter called the Act) in July 1957. The scheme was framed in order to provide additional housing accommodation in the vicinity of the University and the district Courts of Allahabad. For the purpose of the scheme it was proposed to acquire bungalows Nos. 9 and 11, Bank Road. These bungalows consist of an area of about six acres and it was proposed to build 11 new houses in this area. A notice under S. 38 of the Act regarding the proposed scheme was served on the first forty-nine petitioners as occupiers of the premises and they were asked to file their objections. The petitioners filed their objections mainly on the ground that the scheme was not for a public purpose and that the scheme aimed at creating a slum near the University and was, therefore, not an improvement scheme. By a notification dated 13th May 1958 published on 17th May 1958 in the U.P. Gazette the State Government sanctioned the scheme under S. 42 of the Act. The petitioners and other residents of the locality including some teachers of the University of Allahabad sent representations to the Improvement Trust and later to the Nagar Mahapalika and to the State Government opposing the scheme. They pleaded that the scheme was not in the interest of the University and it was prejudicial to the womens hostel of the University which is located near bungalows Nos. 9 and 11, Bank Road. They also maintained that the construction of 41 houses in a small area of about six acres would be derogatory to the locality and to the womens hostel of the University. The State Government, thereupon, sent a letter dated 4th November 1958 to the Registrar of the University agreeing to the acquisition of the land of the two bungalows directly by the University on the condition that the land must be acquired by the University within one year from the date of the issue of the notification sanctioning the scheme on 13th May 1958 failing which the improvement Trust, Allahabad would be free to acquire the land and execute its own scheme which had already been sanctioned by the Government. It is mentioned in the petition that by a letter dated 6th May 1959 the Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, dropped the scheme and subsequently the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to acquire the land for the University. No fresh notification was issued by the State Government for acquiring the land of the two bungalows for the University as required by Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The University was directed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad, to deposit about rupees four lakhs and odd as the estimated cost of the land but the money was not deposited by the University upto 31st March 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer then re-opened the old Bank Road Housing Scheme although no fresh notification reopening the scheme was issued by the State Government under the provisions of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (hereinafter called the Adhiniyam) which had repealed the Act. Under S. 577(c) of the Adhiniyam the land acquisition proceedings for the improvement scheme under the Act were to continue as if they bad been initiated under the Adhiniyam. Section 365(4) of the Adhiniyam provides that acquisition proceeding for improvement schemes should be concluded at least upto the stage of making of awards within five years from the elate of the notification of the scheme under S. 363 of the Adhiniyam unless time is extended by the State Government under the proviso to Section 365(4) of the Adhiniyam. The petitioners contend that time was not extended by the State Government and five years have already expired. They, therefore, maintain that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika has no jurisdiction to proceed with the proceedings for acquiring the land of the two bungalows. They also maintain that the acquisition proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Development Committee of the Nagar Mahapalika has not required the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to frame a housing scheme for the petitioners as provided under S. 346 of the Adhiniyam. The petitioners were informed by the Land Acquisition Officer that there was no housing scheme under S. 346 of the Adhiniyam. The Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika issued notices under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioners to appear before him oil 21st February 1963. The petitioners appeared before him and filed an application requesting him to intimate to them the basis of compensation which was proposed to be paid to the petitioners but the Land Acquisition Officer informed the petitioners that as they were only tenants of the premises there was no provision for any compensation being paid to them. According to the petitioners the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not yet given his final award and the Nagar Mahapalika is trying to evict the petitioners from their quarters and on 16th May 1963 some labourers along with an official of the Nagar Mahapalika came to the spot in order to demolish the buildings standing at Nos. 9 and 11 Bank Road. They were, however, persuaded to postpone the demolition for a few days. The petitioners have, therefore, come to this Court and have prayed that certiorari be issued and the land acquisition proceedings being taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika in connection with the Bank Road Housing Scheme be quashed. They have also prayed that the Land Acquisition Officer be commanded not to proceed further with the scheme or with the land acquisition proceedings in connection with the scheme. Counter-affidavits have been, filed on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and Smt. Gujjan Devi owner of bungalow No. 9, Bank Road. The petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavits.
(3.) I have heard Sri Brijlal Gupta the learned-counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.D. Pant the learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Mahapalika and Sri A.B. saran appearing for Smt. Gaujan Devi.;