- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the relief of certiorari quashing Notifications dated 15th July, 1978 and 17th July, 1978 issued under Section 4 and under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), published in the Gazette on 4-11-1978. Copies of the notifications are Annexure 10 and An-nexure 10-A annexed to the petition. The petitioners further seek quashing of the award dated 18th March, 1980 given by the S. L. A. O.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case arc that the State Government issued the notifica tions for the acquisition of about one acre of land which was required for the construc tion of Gangoh Bye-pass road in Saharan- pur uisirict. THE Notification dated 15th July, 1978 and 17th July, 1978 were publish ed in the Gazette on 4th November, 1978 and the award was given by the S. L. A. O. on 18th March, 1980. THE petitioners never raised any objection at any stage because, according to them, they had no notice of the proceedings. It is alleged by the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings are mala fide and no notice was published in the locality. It is further alleged that the proceedings were conducted stealthily keeping the petitioners in the dark about the proceedings and the service of notice on the petitioners was deliberately avoided and suppressed. We have heard Sri K. M. Dayal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on be half of the petitioners, Sri K. M. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Stand ing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, -no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents nos. 1 to 4. Counter affidavit has "been filed on behalf of the responded rit No. 5 and rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. The first contention on behalf of the petitioners is that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were actuated by malice and the proceed ings have been deliberately suppressed. It is argued that the first attempt for acquisition was made in theyear 1955 when proceedings were taken for acquisition of 8 acres of land. The respondents, it is alleged, wanted to construct the Bye-pass road over an area which was not covered by the acquisition. Therefore a civil suit was filed which was decreed against the State. Thereafter 10. 04 acres of land was sought to be acquired in iheyear 1959. that action was challenged by filing a writ petition which was allowed on 21st December. 1u55 vide Annexure 3. When the attempts made by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were frustrated, they became highly inimical and they made it a prestige issue and started the proceedings which arc now being challenged.
(3.) THIS contention has no force be cause the petitioners have not named any single officer of the Government who may have been dis- pleased on account of filing of the suit or the filing of the writ petition. Incidentally it may also be mentioned that the suit and the writ petition was filed by respondent No. 5 Sri Inder Sen and not by the petitioners. During this period of more than 10 years which elapsed between the first land acquisition proceeding and the third land acquisition proceeding, a number of officers must have been transferred. It cannot be believed that every successor of ficer was prejudiced against the petitioners. THIS contention is, therefore, rejected. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that there was no publica tion of the notification under Section 4 of the Act at the convenient places in the locality. This averment has been made in paragraphs 16 and 24 of the petition wherein it is alleged that no notices under Section 4 (1) of the Act were given near the land or in the locality. No notices were served on the petitioners who were owners of the land. No attempt was made to serve petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 who were residing outside the village. It is argued by Sri K. M. Dayal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, that the contents of paragraph 24 of the petition have not been controverted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who have not filed any counter-affidavit. It is argued that respondent No. 5 has sup ported the petitioners and has stated in paragraph 7 of his counter-affidavit that he himself was not given any notice of the proceedings of 1978 nor he had any knowledge of the same till the present peti tion was filed.;