- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against acquisition of petitioners' plots under the provisions of Land Ac quisition Act (in short 'act') for the pur pose of construction of building of a col lege namely, Smt. Dropadi Devi Kanya Degree College, Khajani, Gorakhpur (in short 'institution' ). As all the parties are represented through counsel and counter-affidavit as well as rejoinder-affidavit stand exchanged, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admis sion in accordance with Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of resolving present controversy are that writ petition No. 36990 of 1995 was filed by present petitioners with one Jai Narain in respect of land in dispute. THE petitioners' case is that the writ petition was filed for the reason that the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh came for laying down foun dation stone of institution's building due to which they apprehended that their pos session will be disturbed without their being any proceeding for requisition or acquisition of the land. THE record of that writ petition is before us from which it appears that each petitioner was required to pay separate Court fee though the writ petition was filed jointly. THE Court fee was not paid. Subsequently, the petitioners counsel deleted petitioners name from array of parties and the writ petition proceeded with Jai Narain as sole petitioner. That writ petition was ul timately dismissed for default. While that writ petition was pending, the State Government issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 16-8-1996 for acquiring the disputed land, the public purpose as declared being for construction of building of the institution. THE notifica tion also mentioned that the proceedings under Section 5-A will not be applicable. THE notification under Section 6 was is sued on 17-4-1977, which was followed by notice under Section 9 of the Act. According to averments made in counter-affidavit of opposite parties, the petitioners refused to accept notice issued under Section 9 (3) of the Act and there fore they returned unserved. Admittedly an award dated 19-7-1997 has been made by Special Land Acquisition Officer Gorakhpur, a copy of which has been an nexed as CA-1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit of M. K. Tiwari. Al though it is denied by petitioners that pos session has been taken over but the con testing opposite parties. averred in counter-affidavit that possession was delivered to institution on 19-7-1997, the day on which the award was made. Accord ing to award the objection were invited from persons interested and the compen sation in respect of land acquired was estimated at Rs. 4,11,797. 66 p while solatium at the rate of 30% was estimated at Rs. l,23,539. 30p. The additional compensa tion at 12% was estimated as Rs. 31,850. 60p. It is apparent from the award that during the hearing of objection, an application was moved on behalf of in stitution due to which the compensation amount was reduced to Rs. 2,61,572. 56p payable to tenure holders for 2. 778 hectare of land. The reason assigned in the award for reducing the compensation is that the land was misutilised by tenure-holder and required filling for which compensation was reduced at the rate of Rs. 11/- per square meter. Beside that, another 25% price was reduced in view of an exemplar which was taken into consideration. Ag grieved by the reduction of amount in proceeding under Section 9, petitioners have filed this writ petition on 13- 2- 1998 against the award. There has been some delay on the part of the petitioners in filing this petition but as the impugned order is dated 19-7-1997 while writ petition was filed on 13-2-1998 and the explanation by petitioners is that they did not know about the proceed ings, therefore, they could not approach this Court earlier. After perusing the relevant documentary evidence on record it appears that the possession was taken over by opposite parties on 19-7- 1997. Except making averments in writ petition to the effect that they are still in possession there is no other evidence on the record to indicate that petitioners are continuing in possession. In absence of any documentary evidence to support the petitioners case that they did not known about the proceedings, we are not inclined to accept petitioners case about want of knowledge about proceedings. However, there might be some delay on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court but on hearing the case on merits we are not inclined to dis miss this petition on that ground as we are of opinion that there appears patent il legality in reducing compensation in this case. We therefore consider it proper to decide the case on merits.
(3.) THE main question of law, which require determination in this case is a's to whether it is open for Special Land Ac quisition Officer to entertain an objection and reduce amount of compensation proposed to be given by allowing objection of the person for whose benefit the land is acquired but before taking up said ques tion we would like to dispose of other questions which have not found favour with us. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the acquisition in this case was not for a public purpose. The conten tion of learned counsel for petitioners is to be turned down for the reason that Section 6 (3) of the Act provides that the declara tion shall be conclusive evidence to the effect that the land is needed for public purposes. Otherwise also, acquisition of land for the purpose of constructing build ing of an educational institution is a public purpose and therefore the argument fails.;