- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Smt. Brij Kishori Devi has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the notification dated 13th of August, 19% under Section 4 of the Land Acquisi tion Act as amended in State of Uttar Pradesh (for short Act) as also the notifica tion under Section 6 (2) of the Act dated 14. 10. 1996, Annexure 2 to the writ petition be quashed and mandamus should issue declaring the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) of Section 4 and Section 17 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. Shri Ram Niwas Singh assisted by Shri Amrendra Singh has been heard at great length at the time of admission of this writ petition. The arguments have been noted with admiration but in spite of an able ad vocacy the points cannot be decided in favour of the petitioner for the reasons hereinafter mentioned.
(2.) THE first argument advanced by Shri Singh is that the notification under Section 4 is bad as it did not specifically mention that the Government or the Governor was of the opinion that immediate possession of the land is necessary. For this reason it was said that the notification is bad. This argument has to be rejected for the following reason. The instant notifica tion says:- "the Governor,, being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act are applicable to the said land in as much as the said land is urgently required for the public purpose and that in view of the pressing urgency it is as well necessary to eliminate the delay caused by an enquiry under Section 5-A of the said Act the Governor is further pleased to direct, under sub-section (4) of the Section 17 of the said Act that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply". Therefore the aforesaid suggestion and the opinion expressed through the notification is enough to rebut the argu ments advanced by Shri Singh. It may be convenient to deal with another factual argument. It was said that there is land available to the State of Uttar Pradesh through Land Ceiling process and since enough area is already declared as surplus area, the petitioner can always insist that the Government may use those surplus area land and not go in for the acquisition proposal.
(3.) IT maybe mentioned here that when-ever a notification under Section 4 is issued it is based on the satisfaction and the opinion of the Government that the land is required for public purpose or for company. In the instant case it is admittedly a public purpose for which the land in question is needed for, a new district has already been created at Padrauna, it having been carved out from areas of district Gorakhpur, Basti and Deoria. In the absence of District head quarter enormous problems should have ac crued in the day-to-day running of the ad ministration. Therefore, it can be said without hesitation that the instant public purpose is a well demonstrated public pur pose and the necessity to take possession is writ large on the face of the public purpose itself. The next argument advanced by Shri Singh was that the dispensing with Section 5-A of the Act is not possible by a bare notification. In case there was such a need, method of calling report of the Collector is available. That the Government may not be justified in immediate doing away with the right under Section 5-A of the Act. In this connection it was re-emphasised that since the surplus land is not very far of from the proposed area to be acquired, which is more than 304 acres, the action must be dubbed and quashed as being violative of the powers under the Act.;