B. D. Agrawal, J. - (1.) Land in dispute measuring 29.583 acres situate in village Jaswantnagar, district Etawah has been acquired by the State Government for the construction of market yard of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Jaswantnagar under planned Development Scheme. The notification under Section 4(1)/ 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued, on June 7, 1979. This has been followed by the notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on June 8, 1979. Enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with. Before possession could be taken in pursuance of the acquisition the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Sri B. Dixit, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there did not exist justification to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The argument advanced in support of this contention is that there exists in the vicinity plot No. 210 wherein certain shops have been raised. Plot No. 210 is not included among the plots acquired under the impugned notification. The notifications did include Plot No. 210-A (area 065 acre), but plot No. 210. According to the petitioners market yard cannot be construed without acquiring Plot No. 210 which will provide the approach from the national high way and since the acquisition of that plot may take time because of enquiry under Section 5-A, it may not be said that there could be urgency to proceed with the acquisition for the rest of the land. We are not impressed with the contention raised. From the other side it is denied as will appear from the counter-Affidavit that the plot No. 210 is so situate that the market - yard may not be raised unless that laud is also acquired. Portion of the larger Plot No. 210 bearing Sub-division No. 210-A is the subject-matter of acquisition under the impugned notifications already. It is true that the plot No 210 covering area of 43 acre is not included in these notifications but the reason advanced for the same is that this would require - enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. There are certain shops existing on that part of the land and, therefore, this had to be given a separate treatment. Even so in paragraph 19 of the counter-Affidavit it is averred specifically and not disputed also that the notification, dated February 21, 1979 was issued in respect of plot No. 210 as well and this was published in the gazette, dated March 31, 1939. In respect of that plot enquiry under Section 5-A was not dispensed with but there was no objection filed and further proceedings towards the acquisition could, therefore, be taken without loss of time. Even if the absence of plot No. 210 from acquisition could create some difficulty in the way of proceeding with the construction of the market yard over the rest of the land acquired, it does not seem that it could have been prudent or reasonable for the State Government to stay its hands and abstain from dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A on that account. The Mandi Samiti does stand in need of the land in question for raising the marked yard in pursuance of the Planned Development Scheme. The urgency is reflected from the purpose which the construction of the market yard is intended to subserve. The market yard is designed primarily to ameliorate the marketing conditions relating to agricultural produces will also appear from the statement of Objects and Reasons of the U.P. Krishi Uptandan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam. The State Government could legitimately consider it expeditious to save the time which may have been lost otherwise in case, Section 5-A were not dispensed with despite the fact that by invoking Sec cion 17(4)/17(1) of the Act it could be possible to do so. The proceed with the entire project in one stroke or not at all may not be regarded as a wise policy in all situations. The sense of urgency in proceeding with the acquisition of the land in dispute is not eroded in our opinion due to necessity not to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A insofar as the plot No. 210 is concerned. The Mandi Samiti has had the reasonable funds available ; the proposal had been initiated by the Director after approval of the site and it could well be regarded appropriate in the public interest to proceed with the subject without unnecessary delay.
(3.) It was submitted then by Sri Dixit in this connection that the notification in the public Gazette took place on July 28, 1979 and hence it should be inferred that there could have been no urgency to proceed with the acquisition. This we are afeard, is without merit. Intervening gap is short and such as we may reasonably ignore. It may, have taken place due to various reasons including the pressure of printing work on the Government Press or it may even be attributable to negligence on the part of the certain officials at some level but that cannot mitigate the urgency referred in the notifications impugned based upon the satisfaction of the State Government.;