- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri H. M. B. Sinha, holding brief of Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. R. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Karvi in district Banda, Seeking impleadment to the petition.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that on the strength of notifications dated 2nd June, 1978 and 3rd June, 1978, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated 1st July, 1978, the respondents are seeking to acquire plot No. 2611 situate in village Kashai, Pargana Karvi, district Banda, and are interfering with their possession over the said plot though the notifications do not include the said plot. On 27th July, 1978 the Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit admitting or denying whether plot No. 2611 situate in village Kashai in the district of Banda was sought to be taken over by the Government in pursuance of the notification dated 3rd June, 1978 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. But, it is unfortunate that even after lapse of a period of more than 17 years the respondent No. 1 has not cared to file the counter affidavit, as directed. The Court has perused the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, dated 1st July, 1978 produced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It has been looked by the learned Standing Counsel as well as by Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel representing the Kris hi Utpadan Mandi Samiti for whose benefit the acquisition is being made. The notifications dated 2nd June, 1978 and 3rd June, 1978 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively are printed at pages 1517, 1518 and 1519 of the Gazette.
(3.) A bare perusal of the two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, as printed in the Gazette, reveals that the disputed plot No. 2611 situate in village Kashai is not included therein. Sr. B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, argues that the disputed plot No. 2611 is covered by the impugned notifications inasmuch as the same is shown, by mistake, in village Bankat.;