S.R.Misra, J. - (1.) BEFORE the arguments could be heard in this case, Sri O. N. Verma appearing for the contesting respondents has pointed out that on 17-1-1985 he has filed an application, duly supported by an affidavit, raising preliminary objection that the writ petition be dismissed as not maintainable, as after the order of demarcation officer, notification has been: Issued and so long as the State Government is not a party to the writ petition, the question of considering the writ petition on merits does not arise.
(2.) IN support of his contention, Sri Verma has cited 3 authorities, 1955 ALJ 497 : 1957 ALJ 453 : and AIR 1973 SC 1293, Having placed reliance on the above three authorities, the contension as stated by Sri Verma is that in the absence of the State Government when no effective relief could. be granted to the petitioner, no positive purpose will be served in considering the case on merits and as such he has prayed that the application be allowed, and the writ petition be declared as not maintainable. Having considered the argument advanced by Sri Verma on behalf of the contesting respondents. I do not find any substance in the preliminary objection and the reliance placed on above three decisions. The first two decisions (1955 ALJ 497 and 1957 ALJ 453} lay out of the proceedings of Land Acquisition Act, and, a specific procedure has been prescribed. Once a notification under sections 4 & 6 of the Act is issued then irrespective of the pendency of any proceedings land will be deemed to have been acquired free from all encumbrances. In that context if the decision goes to the extent that whether a notification under sections 4 and 6 has to be quashed necessarily State is a necessary party on whose behalf the notification under sections 4 and 6 is issued. So far as the case of the Apex Court arising out of a second appeal is concerned the matter was taken in Supreme Court and there a question arose that whether the notification under section 8 issued by the State Government, if the Supreme Court was satisfied that the party concerned was entitled to a relief then without quashing the notification in the absence of the State Government would not a reason, and, as such the Supreme Court directed for the impleadment of the State Government as necessary party and thereafter consequential orders were passed. But, from the materials on the record and from the facts narrated in the writ petition, counter affidavit and the admitted facts I do not think that any case arises for quashing the notification as has been stated by the counsel for the respondents. The preliminary objection is without any substance and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be heard on merits.
(3.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner seeks a relief for a writ, of certiorari, quashing the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 26-9- 1978 (Annexure-14). It is not necessary to give detailed facts mentioned in the writ petition as very limited controversy is the subject matter of writ petition, as such. the necessary bare facts which may dispose of the writ petition are being mentioned;