K.C. Agarwal, J.:- - (1.) THIS writ petition challenges the notification dated 12-10-1976 issued under S. 4 read with S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (briefly stated as ' the Act'). The notification was issued by the State Government for acquiring a number of plots situated in village Hafizabad Mewala, district Meerut. Amongst the various plots mentioned in the said notification, one of them was plot No. 93, measuring 1 Bigha 9 Biswas. THIS plot belongs to the petitioner. The notification stated that the land mentioned therein was required for construction of a Market Yard by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the Mandi Samiti). As in the opinion of the State Government, the purpose for which the land was acquired was urgent, the Governor exercising his power under S. 17 (1) and (1-A) as well as sub-sec. (4) of the aforesaid section, dispensed with the proceedings under S. 5-A of the Act. THIS notification further contained a direction to Collector to take possession of the land mentioned in the Schedule before the award was given under S. 11 of the Act awarding compensation for the land mentioned therein.
(2.) THE allegations made in the petition were that the petitioner was the owner of plot No. 93 of village Hafizabad Mewala, and that she had purchased the same in the year 1969 and since then she had been in continuous possession thereof. It was further alleged that she first constructed a godown on a portion of the land and, thereafter, a factory thereon for the manufacture of sugar mill machines. THE petitioner claimed that the acquisition of land by the State Government for the purposes of the Mandi Samiti was illegal and against the provisions of the Act and was liable to be quashed. The writ petition was resisted by the State Government as well as by the Mandi Samiti. Both the respondents claimed that the notification challenged by the petitioner was valid, having been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Although a number of grounds were taken in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, but Sri Markanday Katju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pressed the petition only on one ground namely, that the urgency shown in the present case was not of such a nature that even the summary proceedings provided by S. 5-A of the Act could be dispensed with. The submission as elaborated by the learned counsel was that S. 5-A of the Act was mandatory in character inasmuch as it conferred a right upon the person whose land is proposed to be taken, to file objection to show that either the acquisition made was invalid or that other land was available which could be acquired instead of his land. The State Government dispensed with S. 5-A without there being any real urgency and deprived the petitioner of her right to file objection, therefore, the acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed. The learned counsel further contended that the purpose for which the land was being acquired was by its nature not such an emergent one to warrant the elimination of even the summary proceedings under S. 5-A of the Act.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we consider it proper to quote S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act which authorises the appropriate Government to dispense with the procedure laid down in S. 5-A of the Act where the land is proposed to be acquired for public purposes under the Act. As already stated, S. 5-A entitles an aggrieved person to file objection against the proposed acquisition notified under S. 4 of the Act. The relevant portion of S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the State Legislature, is as follows :- " 17. (1) In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in S. 9, sub-sec. (1) take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a company. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (1-A). The power to take possession under sub-sec. (1) may also be exercised in the case of other than waste or arable land, where the land is acquired for or in connection with sanitary improvements of any kind or planned development. (2)....................... (3)........................ (4) In the case of any land to which in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub- sec. (1), sub-sec. (1-A) or sub-sec. (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of S. 5-A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct a declaration may be made under S. 6 in respect of the land at any time after the publication of the notification under S. 4, sub-sec. (1)" . A reading of the above provision would show that the State Government is now empowered to dispense with the procedure of S. 5-A even in respect of land which is neither waste nor arable, if the land sought to be acquired is needed for planned development.;