Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs : "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties/authority concerned not to construct road upon the petitioners land i.e. Gata no.54/0.0440 situated in village-Virura, Pargana-Vijnaur, Tehsil- Sarojni Nagar, District-Lucknow without adopting acquisition proceeding provided under Act. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties/authority concerned to allot the land of equal value in favour of petitioners."
(2.) During the course of arguments it transpired that the road has already been constructed on Gata No.54, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that they are entitled to compensation in respect of the said land. In fact, it was his contention that the said Gata is not mentioned in the notification issued by the respondent-Corporation under section 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965 (hereinafter referred as 'Adhiniyam 1965), therefore, the utilization of the said Gata for construction of the road without acquisition was patently illegal, as such the petitioners were entitled to compensation, however, on a perusal of the said notifications, copies of which are annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred as 'the Board') the Court finds that in view of the provisions of section 28 and 32 of the Adhiniyam 1965 the boundaries of the area comprised in the scheme alone are required to be mentioned in such notifications which have accordingly been mentioned, meaning thereby, all lands falling within the said boundaries are to be used for public purposes mentioned in the notification, which in this case was a scheme called "Bhumi Vikas Evam Grih Sthan Yojana No.3, Vrindavan, Lucknow".
(3.) It is not the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the pleadings nor in the arguments based on the documents on record that the Gata in question did not fall within the boundaries of the scheme as notified under section 28 and 32 aforesaid. In fact it is the specific case of the opposite parties that it was so.;