- (1.) H. L. Gokhale, C. J. Heard Mr. Deepak Seth, learned Counsel for the peti tioner Mr. Syeed Hussain, learned Addi tional Advocate General appears for the State-respondents. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, appears for intervenes
(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a co operative housing society formed by some 50 members, who are employees of the in come tax department. THE petitioner claims to have purchased a property known as Rasulpur House and land adjoining thereto bearing old House No. 1-C, Mahanagar, and new No. 545/1, Mahanagar at Lucknow, recorded at Khasra No. 261, in a public action made by the Tax Recovery Officer of the income tax department. It has purchased the property to put up its hous ing society over there. THE sale is stated to have been confirmed by the auctioning authority and the sale certificate is issued on 28. 3. 1979 in favour of the society and the sale is duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Lucknow on 22. 5. 1979. The respondent No. 4-Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry) of State of U. P. is stated to be the tenant of this property, which is of the area of 5 bighas and 15 biswas. He is having an 'office and work shop over there and State wants to expand it. The first respondent-State of U. P. has issued notifications to acquire this property under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No tification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 27. 12. 1986 and one under section 6 on 17. 2. 1988. The petition seeks to chal lenged these two notifications. The petition has been opposed by filing a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. A rejoinder and further pleadings are also filed. The principal challenge in the writ petition is two folds. The first is that the acquisition is vitiated by mala fides and the second is that the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has lapsed for the reason that the declaration under section 6 of the said Act has not been made within one year from the date of publica tion of section 4 notification.
(3.) AS far as the first submission is concerned, it is on three different footing. Firstly, it is stated that the proceedings for acquisition were initiated twice in the past and were subsequently dropped. Thus, it is pointed out that first attempt to acquire this property was made in the year 1983. A let ter dated 26. 7. 1983 is annexed at Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is a communi cation of the Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow informing the then Secretary of the petitioner-society that the acquisition proceedings then initiated had been dropped. The second attempt to acquire the very property was made when a no tification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 17. 1. 1985. The same was objected by the petitioner-society by filing its objec tion on 12. 91985. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the proceeding is deemed to be dropped since no declaration was subsequently made under section 6 of the Act. This submission was countered on behalf of the respondents by submitting that merely because attempts were made earlier to acquire the property twice, it does not make the subsequent acquisition mala fide, nor can the principle of res judicata be invoked with respect to the acquisition pro ceedings. In our view, the submission is well taken and no inference of mala fides can be drawn on any such counts. Merely because attempts were made earlier in this behalf on two occasions and the proceed ings were dropped, it cannot make the third attempt a mala fide act.;