Pradeep Kant, Ram Prasad Yadav, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Lalji Sinha, Sri. A.K. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Navneet Agarwal, learned Counsel for the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as U.P.S.I.D.C.). Initially this petition was filed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 26.12.1996 issued under sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure No. 3) and the order dated 27.2.1999 passed by Land Acquisition Officer (Annexure No. 14). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner over the plot Nos. 1019, 1020, 1021 and 1023 situated in village Banthara, Hararada, Unnao. Later on during pendency of the writ petition, the petition was amended and the following reliefs were claimed: (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 26.12.1996 applying the provision of sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the petitioner's plot Nos. 1019, 1020, 1021 and 1023 (Annexure -14 to the writ petition); (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner over plot Nos. 1019, 1020, 1021 and 1023 situated in village Banthara, Hazarada, Unnao.
(2.) BEFORE proceeding on merit of the present petition we would like to put on record that the petitioner had filed a writ petition No. 28 (LA) of 1998, in re: - M/s. Shalimar Leather Industries v. State of U.P. and others, i.e. after issuance of the Notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 15.2.1996 and 26th December, 1996. We have perused the copy of that writ petition also and we find that in the pleadings, the petitioner had mentioned the alleged illegality in issuing the Notification under section 6 of the Act but in the relief clause the petitioner only prayed for quashing the notices which were issued to the petitioner for taking compensation of the land of the petitioner and also to exempt the land of the petitioner from acquisition proceedings. In paragraphs 9, 10 and onwards paragraphs the petitioner raised the plea that the Notification under section 6 was illegally issued and there was no justification and occasion for the opposite parties to acquire the land for the said purpose as the land acquired under various other schemes is still lying unused. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had invested huge amount in installing the aforesaid factory and therefore the same may be exempted from the acquisition. One more ground for claiming exemption was that the respondents were not considering the fact, that the land was required for Industrial Development, whereas on the land in dispute the petitioner has already installed and running a factory, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the same is acquired, for the Industrial Development.
(3.) THE writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st April, 2004. The aforesaid order says that the petitioner before the Court made a statement that he does not want to press relief (a) in the prayer clause. This was a relief which asked, for quashing of the notices issued for payment of compensation, as a consequence of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. This relief thus was given up in the said writ petition. It was, however, prayed that the respondents be directed to exempt the land of the petitioner from the acquisition proceedings.;