- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is for quash ing notifications, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Annexures 2 and 6 of the writ petition. Beside the writ of certiorari aforesaid the petitioners have claimed a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the petitioners' possession over plot No. 283 area 12. 30 acres situated in village Ahilyaganj Bangar, Tehsil and district Mahura.
(2.) IN brief the averments made in the petitioner are that the petitioners 1 to 5 and Smt. Bimla wife of petitioner No. 6 and mother of petitioner No. 7 are the owners of plot No. 283 area 12. 39 acres aforesaid. This land was purchased by them for installing a Small Scale INdustry. IN the year 1968 a factory known as M/s. Raman Engineering INdustries, Mathura was established under a registered partnership agreement. The in dustry was also registered under the Fac tories Act and with the Director of IN dustries and Director of Small Scale IN dustries. IN the master plan this land was ear-marked for light industries. IN the revenue record also the industry was shown as such in the Khasra 1385 Fasali. The said factory was closed some time in the year 1986-87 because of death of a partner Suresh Goel and also because of litigation with Bank. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short Act') was issued by the Collector Mathura which was published in the official Gazette dated 1-6-1991 vide Annexure 2 and it was also pub lished in Hindi newspaper Amar Ujala' on 19- 2-1991, but to the best knowledge of the petitioners this notification was not pub lished in any other newspaper nor, its sub stance was published in the locality where industry is situated either by affixation or by any other mode of service. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is thus said to be invalid, arbitrary and without application of mind. The petitioners received the notice on 6-3-1991 where after they filed objection under Section 5-A of the Act before the respondent No. 3. Additional objections were also filed vide Annexures 3,4 and 5. It was stated in the objections that the land could not be acquired for residential pur pose as there is industry already existing in the land since several years. The petitioners came to know from the news item in Amar Ujala' dated 18-3-1992 that a notification under Section 6 of the Act had also been issued. This notification has also been chal lenged on the ground that it was issued in a mechanical manner without having any report under Section 5-A before the Gover nor and that there is no mention of applica tion of Section 17 (4) of the Act along with Section 4 (1) in the notification dated 18-2-1991. It is further stated that in the Master plan a mention has been made that light industry already operating in the industrial area on Mathura-Vrindavan road will con tinue which shows that the area so marked can not be used for residential purpose and that the acquisition without amendment in the Master Plan following the procedure laid down under the Act will be illegal. It is further stated that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 have been issued in colourable exercise of powers and also suf fer from mala fide action and malice. The change of user, according to the petitioners, is not permissible. Affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S. V. Goswami and learned counsel for the Respondents Sri Dilip Gupta.
(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for petitioners has been that since in the Master plan the area was ear-marked for light industry, it could not be acquired for any other purpose except after amend ment of the Master plan and since the pur pose of acquisition mentioned in the notification under Section 4 is for construc tion of house development in the aforesaid village, the proposed acquisition is invalid so also the notification. Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit shows that vide notifica tion dated 27-5-1992 amendment in the Master plan was already permitted and the existing use for light industry shown in the Master plan was changed to residential pur pose. It was however, contended that this amendment will not validate the notifica tion inasmuch as under Section 13 (4) of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Such amendment will have prospec tive operation inasmuch as the amendment came into force with effect from the date of first publication of the aforesaid notice. It was further contended that since the notification under Section 4 was issued on 18- 2-1991 i. e. prior to amendment in the Master plan the amendment in the Master plan can not cure the defect in the notifica tion. It was also contended that the area which was ear-marked for the light industry could not be acquired for other purpose namely, for housing development plan. It was further contended that in view of Sec tion 14 (2) of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 after coming into operation of any of the plan in any develop ment area no development shall be under taken or carried out or continued in that area unless such development is also in ac cordance with such plans. It was stressed that since the development is not in accord ance with Master Plan originally published, notifications have been rendered invalid. However, after considering the aforesaid provisions and various authorities of the Apex Court we do not find force in any of the above arguments. In Jai Narain and others v. Union of India and others, (1996) 1 SCC 9, it was laid down that whatever may be user of the land under the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan the State can always ac quire the same for public purpose in accord ance with the law of the land.;