A.N. Varma, N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) Two points have been urged in support of this petition. The first is that over the disputed land, admittedly the petitioners factory (Dal Mill) was standing. The factory also had some appurtenant land for drying the pulses. The Pashas was, therefore, wholly unjustified in not excluding the entire area which was being used by the Petitioners for drying pulses. The second ground is that the petitioners afforded no opportunity against the proposal to enquire the land under Section 28.
(2.) So far as the first ground is concerned, we find that upon an objection filed by the petitioner claiming that the factory should be left out of acquisition, the Niyojan Samiti made a recommendation after in selecting the site that the factory should be exempted. That recommendation was accepted by the Parishad whereupon a notification under Section 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam was issued. The contention of the learned Counsel that the entire appurtenant land measuring 0.46 acre of Plot No. 125 and 0.38 acre of plot No. 124, ought to have been exempted. The area which has been left out is so small that it will be impossible for the petitioner to run the factory effectively,
(3.) We arc unable to agree. The question as to how much appurtenant land should have been left with the petitioners along with the factory is essentially one which was for the Parishad to consider. The matter was examined first by the Niyojan Samiti, the members of which upon an inspection of the spot, made certain recommendation with regard to the exemption of the factory. That the recommendation was considered by the Parishad and it accepted it. Thereupon the notification under Section 32 was issued with the approval of the State Government, as mentioned above, the issue raised by the learned Counsel under this head is essentially one of fact and this Court cannot go into the same in these proceedings.;