- (1.) THE eleven petitioners pray to quash the Notification No. 2946/28-5-93-4-M. U-90 dated 9-7-1993 (as contained in Annexure-A) and Notifica tion No. 102/28-5-94-4- N. U.- 90 dated 22-3-1994 (as contained in Annexure B) is sued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to acquire about 25 Acres of lands.
(2.) A bare perusal of Annexures A and B show that they were made for the purpose of the development of Uttaranchal and Uttarakhand and that the lands in question were sought to be acquired for construction of an air-strip in village Panai Talli (Gauchar) pargana Chandpur of the district Chamoli. The grievance of the petitioners is that the lands sought to be acquired under the emergent measures, as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act, are their best fertile paddy producing land instead the lands at alternative places be acquired; that the alleged construction of the air-strip is contrary to the proclaimed policy of the Government of India; that no prior permission from the State Land Use Board was obtained for converting their lands for constructing an air-strip, that the claim to the effect that the lands are acquired for promoting tourism is totally false and baseless inasmuch as the districts of Chamli, Uttar Kashi and Pithauragarh are restricted areas where foreigners are not allowed without prior permission. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of U. P. it has been stated, inter alia, that for the purpose of tourism, transport and regional develop ment the air-strip was sought to be constructed expeditiously and for this reason the action under Section 17 of the Act was taken; that it has been found as a fact on experience that due to development of transport and communication a region develops; that as no other land as per geographical and technical view point was available hence the lands in question were selected for acquisition; that an air- strip in Pithauragarh has already been constructed and that the lands in question have been acquired at the request of the Director, Givil Aviation, U. P. and after obtain ing the sanction of the Land Use Committee U. P.
(3.) SRI Lalji Sahai SRIvastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended as follows : (i) In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition the acquisition by invoking special powers mentioned under Section 17 of the Act was unwarranted. (ii) Alternatively, if this Court comes to a conclusion that recourse to Section 17 of the Act was rightly taken in that event the petitioners should be given a suitable land first and if for some reason it is not possible for the respondents to give them an alternative site in that event they should be paid reasonable compensation expeditiously. Sri U. N. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India stated that the Unions not interested in acquisition of the lands and it is the State Government who is interested in acquisition of the lands for the purposes men tioned in its counter-affidavit.;