A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) -This petition assails the validity of a notice issued to the petitioners by the Tahsildar acting as a Requisitioning Authority under the U. P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948 ('The Act' hereafter) stating that the land mentioned therein is required for a public purpose and consequently, they may deliver possession thereof to the said authority within ten days.
(2.) THE essential facts lie within a narrow compass. THE petitioners claim that they are tenure holders of two plots, namely, nos.70 and 96 lying in village Bilaspur, district Deoria. THE Tahsiidar, Salempur, district Deoria has, however, issued notices to the petitioners stating that these plots are needed for public purpose within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and that consequently, the petitioners may handover possession thereof within ten days. It is these notices which have been challenged by means of this petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the material allegations contained in the petition. Several questions were raised in support of the petition, the first of which was referred by us for the opinion of a Full Bench which having answered the same against the petitioners has returned the papers for being placed before us for the disposal of the petition. The question referred was whether the nomination of the Tahsildar as the Requisitioning Authority under the proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Act must precede the appointment of the Tahsildar by the State Government to act as the Requisitioning Authority. The contention was that inasmuch as in this case the nomination by the Collector of the Tahsildar was made after the appointment of the latter by the State Government to act as Requisitioning Authority, the Tahsildar was not competent to requisition the land under the Act. The Full Bench has by its order dated 25-2-1988 answered the question referred to it in the negative against the petitioners following that decision we hold that the Tahsildar was legally competent to issue the impugned notices. The second ground of challenge was that the land is not being requisitioned for a public purpose as defined under the Act. The contention has no substance. "Public purpose" has been defined under section 2 (2) to mean, apart from the purposes specified under clauses (i) to (iv), any other object which the State Government may after publication in the gazette and after considering any objection or suggestion received in that behalf, declare essential for the development of agriculture or improvement of the life of community in rural areas. Acting under this provision the State Government issued a notification dated 7-12-1951 published in the gazette dated December 1, 1951 stating that laying of pathways and road etc is essential for the development of agriculture and improvement of the life of community in rural areas.
(3.) THIS notification provides a complete answer to the petitioners' submission. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the road in question was being constructed for connecting two villages. That obviously is a public purpose within the meaning of the Act designed to improve the life of the community inhabiting the concerned rural areas. This brings us to the next contention which was that the impugned action has been taken without any application of mind. The contention has been repudiated in the counter affidavit. It has come in evidence that the road was proposed to be constructed for the convenience and use of the general public, namely, for connecting two villages, viz. Karuwana and Parasiya. It is further asserted in the counter affidavit that the proposal for requisition of the land was received by the Collector from the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD Deoria, vide letter no. 1990/13 dated 16-8-84, whereupon the Collector duly authorised the Tahsildar, Salempur to take further action in the matter.;