- (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 19-10-2013 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') as well as notification dated 30-10-2014 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. A further writ of mandamus has also been claimed to restrain the respondents and its agent from taking the actual possession of the land in dispute covered by the said notifications.
(2.) We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Imran Saeed for the petitioner, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Dr.Y.K.Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(3.) Facts of the case, in short, necessary for the purpose of the dispute are as under : Petitioners claim to be the 'bhumidhar' of different parcel of land situate in two villages namely; Uravar Hashtaraf & Aslempur Nagla Kanhar, Tehsil & Pargana Sikohabad, district Firozabad. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for alleged public purpose namely; to construct expressway from Lucknow to Agra in the official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 19-10-2013. By the said notification, the land belonging to the petitioners situate in above two mentioned villages were sought to be acquired. The copy of the aforesaid notification was also published in two Hindi daily newspapers 'Dainik Jagran' and 'Hindustran' dated 25-10-2013. Thereafter, notices were issued under Section 5A of the Act to the tenure holders to file their objections. Notice specified 09-12-2013 as the date fixed for hearing of the objection. It has been alleged that some of the petitioners filed their objections, which were more or less similar in nature. Further case set up by the petitioners is that though all the petitioners were present in person on the date fixed but since neither the Additional District Magistrate nor the Special Land Acquisition Officer were present, no hearing took place on the aforesaid date. The declaration under Section 6 was published in the official gazette on 30-10-2014. The substance of the said notification was published in the newspapers on 15-12-2014. First submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act was published beyond the period of one year from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, hence, the same is null and void in view of proviso to Section 6 of the Act. It is also submitted that no publication of the substance of the aforesaid notification was ever made by beat of drum in the locality as mandated by Section 4 of the Act, hence, the acquisition is bad in law.;