- (1.) BY means of this petition petitioners are challenging the validity of a notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act asking the petitioners to deliver possession within 15 days of the service of the notice in respect of plot no. 331 situate in village Betiabata, Mirzapur. Initially when the petition was filed the principal ground taken in the petition was that the impugned notice is bad because no action under the Land Acquisition Act had been taken by the respondents. It was also asserted that no opportunity, what-so-ever, was afforded to the petitioners, under Section 5 of the said Act. However, after the exchange of affidavits, the only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition was that plot no. 331 did not fall within the area, which was sought to be acquired by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Varanasi, here-in-after referred to as the Parishad, under the U. P. Avas and Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that none of the notifications issued either under Section 28 or 32 or even in the impugned notice there is any mention of plot no. 331 and consequently, no action for eviction of the petitioners from that plot could be taken in pursuance of those notifications.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- Parishad, in which it has been categorically asserted that in pursuance of a Housing and Improvement Scheme, framed under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam, a notification was issued under Section 28 and was duly published in Official Gazette and local news-paper on 21-7-79, 28-7-79 and 4-8-79. Individual notices were also issued, under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, and were served on petitioners 1 to 4, in pursuance whereof, objections were also filed by the various tenure-holders including the petitioners 1 to 3. Niyojan Samiti, which was delegated authority to consider objections, examined various objections and made recommendations to the Board. In the recommendations of the Niyojan Samiti, there is an express reference to plot no. 331. The original record pertaining to impugned acquisition proceedings was produced before us from which this assertion of the Parishad is fully borne out. The original recommendation of the Niyojan Samiti clearly discloses that there is a recommendation that in so far as pacca house belonging to the petitioners standing over an area of 25.28 square meters out of plot no. 331, the same may be released from the proposed acquisition. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that area covered by the pucca building standing on plot no. 331 has, in fact been released from the acquisition proceedings. The aforesaid averments made in the counter-affidavit are fully supported by the original record produced by the learned counsel for the Parishad before us. In the notification issued under Section 28, boundaries of the area proposed to be acquired for the Scheme have also been clearly mentioned. In the petition as well as in the rejoinder-affidavit, which has been filed by the petitioners, there is no averment whatsoever express or otherwise stating that plot no. 331 did not fall within the area said to be acquired under Section 28. What has been asserted by the petitioners through-out is that there was no notification issued regarding plot no. 331. The scheme of the Adhiniyam clearly suggests that only the boundaries of the entire area sought to be acquired need be mentioned. Individual plot numbers falling within the area are not required to be mentioned in the notifications under Section 28 or 32 of the Adhiniyam ; consequently the mere omission to refer to plot no. 331 in the said notification cannot justify the inference sought to be drawn by the petitioners that the said plot was not acquired under the notifications issued under Sections 28 and 32 of the Adhiniyam. Further it is, apparent that the question of releasing any part of. plot no. 331 would not have arisen had not that plot also fallen within the boundaries of the area sought to be acquired for the Scheme. From the record produced before us, it is clear that plot no. 331 was included within the area sought to be acquired by the Parishad. In the result, we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. The interim order dated 30-10-84 passed by this;