K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Sardar Swaroop Singh and others challenging the validity of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on 13-9-1980 and under section 6 of the said Act dated 13-9-1983.
(2.) A notification was issued by the State of U. P. for acquiring the plots mentioned therein. The purpose mentioned was "for the use of a Housing Cooperative Society, to develop it and distribute it in plots to its members for construction of houses thereon." A large number of objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act were filed by the persons interested in the land which were proposed to be acquired by the notification aforesaid. The objections were heard by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, a report under section 5-A of the Act had been submitted to the State Government. The State Government issued a notification under section 6 of the Act on 13th September, 1983 declaring that the plots mentioned therein were required for construction of houses by the members of the Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti. This decision had been arrived at after considering the report submitted to it under section 5-A of the aforesaid Act. It was, thereafter, that the present writ petition was filed in this Court. It was claimed by the petitioners' counsel that since the notice the notification under section 4 mentioned the purpose of acquisition to be different than what was stated in the notification under section 6, therefore, the two notifications are liable to be quashed. In the notification under section 4, the purpose was for the construction of the houses by the members of the U. P. Sahkari Awas Sangh whereas the latter is for the purpose of construction of the houses by the members of the Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti. The submission has no substanse. Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti was one of the constituent of U. P. Sahkari Awas Sangh. Therefore, mere omission to mention the name of Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti in the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was of no consequence. In reality, the purpose of acquisition was the same. It was suggested by the counsel for the petitioners that since the name of Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti was disclosed after the disposal of the objections under section 5 A, the petitioners were greatly prejudiced and could not file the objections under section 5 A on the grounds on which they would have done had they known that the acquisition was for the Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti. The submission has no merit. The Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti had filed before the Land Acquisition Officer the registration certificate, its bye-laws and had participated through counsel in the proceedings. The petitioners fully knew that the land was being acquired for the members of the Ambedkar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, which they themselves admitted in the application moved before the Land Acquisition Officer dated 26-11-1981. A copy of this application has been filed as Annexure II on behalf of the contesting respondents.
(3.) THE second point was that the Society since was a Company within the meaning of that phrase defined in the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, compliance of Land Acquisition (Company) Rules 1963 was essential and as in this case no report under Rule 4 had been obtained by the State Government before issuing the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire land acquisition proceedings were invalid. It is true that the Society is also a Company within the meaning of that phrase defined in the Land Acquisition Act and for acquiring land for the Society, compliance of Part VII is necessary. It is in exercise of the power conferred by section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Central Government made the Rules for the guidance of the State Government and the officers of the State Government which are known as the Land Acquisition (Company) Rules 1963. It is, however, incorrect, as was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an enquiry under Rule 4 should have been made before issuing the notification under section 4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranatoda Cruz Pinto, AIR 1985 SC 736, that enquiry under Rule 4 before issuance of the notification under section 4 is not mandatory requirement. While coming to that conclusion the Supreme Court held that there are certain matters which are required to be done under Rule 4 but they cannot be done unless notification under section 4 is not issued.;