- (1.) BY this petition, the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 20-3-1991 issued under Section 4 and declaration dated 28-2-1992 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the petitioner's land viz. Plots No. 542, 543 and 544 of Village Jainsinghpura Bangar, Mathura admeasuring area about 6. 66 acres sought to be acquired under the Act.
(2.) IT is stated in the writ petition that sometime in the year 1990, the then Vice-Chairman of Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Development Authority), one Sri Rajeev Kumar, I. A. S. made and sent a proposal to the Collector, Mathura for acquiring 15. 58 acres of land. In the district Mathura the Collector who was authority concerned with acquisition of land was also the Vice-Chairman of Development Authority at relevant point in time. Thus, the aforesaid Sri Rajeev Kumar, I. A. S. was both Vice-Chairman of the authority as well as Collector of district Mathura and it means that the authority which made request and proposal for acquisition of land was the same authority who was ultimately to take decision to recommend the acquisition of land to the Government for issuance of necessary notification by it. Apart from it the Collector while making inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, acts as quasi-judicial authority, therefore, while doing so, he has become the judge in his own cause. Thus, the sanctity and objectivity attached to Section 5-A of the Act becomes redundant and otiose resulting in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, as the action is vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias. IT is further stated that the Government without application of mind to the facts, including the fact that the same authority was proposer and the recommending authority, took a decision to issue notification under Section 4 of the Act, and a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20th March, 1991 comprising an area of 15. 58 acres land proposed to be acquired for the purpose of planned housing development by the Development Authority which is a public purpose. The petitioners' aforesaid plots have also been included in the said notification. It is further stated that a notice inviting objections under Section 5-A of the Act was issued by Collector, Mathura and was published in daily newspaper 'amar Ujala' dated 21-3-1991. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners have filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 18-4-1991 ventilating their grievances in the said objections and it was specifically requested that they may be given opportunity of personal hearing also. One of the petitioner Sri Brij Pal Bhargava appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 3-5-1991. However on that date, Sri Bhargava was informed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the Land Acquisition Department had not filed the reply to the objections filed by the petitioners and also because of the fact that officers were busy in election duties, no hearing was possible on that day and therefore, the next date for personal hearing will be communicated to the petitioners in due course, but it is stated that the petitioners have never received any information from the respondents regarding next date for personal hearing and ultimately, the petitioners have learnt that on 28-2- 1992 the Government also made a declaration under Section 6 of the Act for the aforesaid land. By the said declaration, the Government also invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Act intending to take immediate possession of the land. A true copy of the notification dated 28-2- 1992 is on record as Annexure-5 of the writ petition. It is further stated that in given facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justifiable reason for invoking urgency of power envisaged under Section 17 (1) of the Act. As a matter of fact such provision has been invoked without application of mind in mechanical manner by the respondents. It is also stated that the Master Plan for Mathura indicates the user of land in question totally different for the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. There is no alteration by way of amendment in the Master Plan by which user of land in question has been changed into housing development. Thus, the notifications of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act are contradictory to the user of the land in question mentioned in the Master Plan of the Authority. Besides aforesaid assertions made in the pleadings of the writ petition the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ravi Kant appearing for the petitioners has also submitted at the strength of further averments in pleadings of the writ petition that the proceeding under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is vitiated on account of the fact that notification dated 20-3-1991 issued under Section 4 was not at all published in two daily newspapers as required under the provisions of said Section, and the publication of notification by the Collector is not permissible under law as the power to publish the notification could not be delegated to the Collector nor in fact it has been so delegated. Similarly, the substance of notification was not published in the form of public notice at convenient place in the locality as required under Section 4 (1) of the Act, thus on both the counts entire acquisition proceeding is held to be invalid and void ab initio. Secondly, the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing in connection of objections filed under Section 5a of the Act and on that account also further proceeding is vitiated under law. Thirdly, there was no justifiable reasons for invoking Section 17 (1) of the Act. The invocation of urgency is result of complete non-application of mind and mechanical approach on the part of the State Government, therefore, the declaration under Section 6 and invocation of urgency provision under Section 17 (1) of the Act are result of complete non-application of mind and mala fide exercise of power and are, therefore, illegal and void. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, but the order which we propose to pass in the writ petition, we need not to refer the same.
(3.) DISPUTING the various averments made in the writ petition and in the justification of the impugned action, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavit, besides, counter and supplementary counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 of the writ petition, to which we will refer hereinafter at appropriate place. However, contrary to the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Sunita Agrawal appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 has submitted that since in pursuance of said notifications for acquisition, the possession of land included in it, has been taken over by the respondents on 3rd April, 1992 and award under Section 11 of the Act has also been made on 18th March, 1994, therefore, the title of land in question stood vested in the State Government and Development Authority resulting which the State Government and beneficiary of the said acquisition became absolute owner of the land so acquired. In such a situation, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act cannot be quashed in writ proceeding and no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this belated stage. In support of their submissions learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have also placed reliance upon several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court to which we will deal a little later.;