- (1.) THE four petitioners had lands at Village Safipur, Pargana Dhankur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. THE Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Chanda had owned Khasra plot No. 67 (11. 5,0), petitioners No. 2 and 3 were owners of plot No. 14 of 1/2 bighas, and the petitioner No. 4 of Khasra plot No. 66, area 4. 3. 18. THEir land had been acquired for the purpose of constructing the Hindon-Yamuna Dam between kilometres 11. 740 to 12. 140 and for the aforesaid scheme, part of the said plots of the petitioners became the subject-matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Of the scheme of the State Government i. e. , the Hindon-Yamuna Dam and initiating the acquisition proceedings under the Act, aforesaid, there is no issue on record. THE net result of whatever the acquisition proceeding were worth is that in so far as the scheme of the State of U. P. in the Hindon-Yamuna Dam is concerned, the project is complete. THE Dam has been constructed and water Sows into the reservoirs.
(2.) THE petitioners have lost their lands and as Hindon-Yamuna Dam Scheme is complete, possession has been wrested from them. As compensa tion was not being paid to the petitioners, they filed the present writ petition. On 26 October, 1994 when notice was issued on the writ petition, having been accepted by the Standing Counsel on behalf of the Five respon dents, there were directions of the Court that the respondents so arrayed will file their counter affidavit, and further produce the Gazette which published the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, aforesaid, on the next date of listing. In effect, a certiorari has been issued by the High Court to produce the record. None of the respondents arrayed filed their affidavits. Respon dents No. 1, 2 and 3 had it filed through one Satya Prakash Singh an Additional Tehsildar. He mentions in paragraph 1 of the counter affidavit that he has been deputed to file the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. These respondents are : (1) The State of U. P. (2) Collector, Bulanshahr, and (3) Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Orgainsation), Bulandshahr. Thus, these party respondents had their version conveyed to the Court by a counter affidavit through an Additional Tehsildar. Respondents No. 4 and 5 are the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Construction Division, Ghaziabad, and Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Work, Region I, Meerut. These respondents have not filed a return to the writ petition at all. A faint plea was raised by the Standing Counsel that they have not had an occasion to file their counter affidavit. On record, this is not correct. Appended to the counter affidavit, as Annexure '1', affirmed by Satya Prakash Singh aforesaid, an Additional Tehsildar, is an inter- departmental correspondence between the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 3, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 4. The subject of the letter dated 18 February, 1995 is this very writ petition, i. e. , Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34649 : Smt. Chanda v. State of U. P. , of which Notice No. 31887 of 1994 had been received at the office of the Standing Counsel. Thus, at no stage any respondent can come with a plea that he was either without notice on the petition or was unaware that a writ petition had been filed and was pending at the High Court. Respondents No. 4 and 5 at every given stage knew of this writ petition, upon which notice had specifically been issued to him also, but for reasons best known, evaded to answer it by a counter affidavit. In so far as respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, they should have had the writ petition answered responsibly either through the affidavit of the Collector, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2, or the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE only aspect which is now to be examined is whether the purpose of acquisition has in fact been given effect to or not, and if it has not, then, can the petitioners, be restituted to the position as if the land acquisition proceedings were not there ? THE record reveals that the second alternate is not available to the State of U. P. , now. The contention in the counter affidavit is that upon non-receipt of the Gazette under Section 6 within time, the award was not declared, there fore, the proceedings of acquisition have been cancelled. This statement in itself implies that Section 6 was only a follow-up of Section 4 and it is not that the land acquisition proceedings had not been initiated but the formality of having it published in the Gazette had not been rendered.;