Pradeep Kant and Abhinava Upadhya, JJ. - (1.) THESE are two writ petitions challenging the notification dated 12.1.1984, issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also the declaration made under section 6 (1) of the Act. The land in question was acquired for public purpose and the provisions of section 5-A of the Act were dispensed with as the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Act were made appli cable.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that notices under section 9 (1) of the Act were issued to the petitioners and according to the Raebareli Development Authority, the possession of the land was also taken on 14.5.1984. The award was pronounced on 23.9.1986. The petitioners have raised a dispute regarding actual delivery of pos session and they say that the constructions raised by them are still on the spot, which have been demolished by the respondents after the interim order passed by this Court and in support thereof, they have placed reliance upon the min utes of meeting said to have been held between the Raebareli Development Authority, certain other officers and the petitioners on 10.5.1990, wherein it was observed that because of the fact that there is a stay order of the High Court and the possession of the land has not been made available, therefore, the scheme could not be implemented fully. The question, as to whether the petitioners are in actual possession of the land or not, in view of the fact that the possession of the land is said to have been taken after issuance of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act as far back as in 1984, would hardly be relevant for adjudicating upon the issue whether possession of the land was actually taken or the same was taken after issuance of notices under section 9 (1) of the Act, symbolically, on issuing a cer tificate to that effect.
(3.) THE State had issued the notifications under section 4(1) read with sec tion 17 (4) of the Act saying that the land is required for public purpose, namely, for the housing scheme behind the Feroz Gandhi Vidyalaya, Raebareli for the residents of Raebareli. THE State had the authority to issue such notifications and the purpose shown therein cannot be said to be the pur pose other than public purpose. THE declaration under section 6 (1) of the Act was issued within time and possession was also taken. The main thrust of the petitioners' Counsel is that once the Raebareli Development Authority, in its meeting dated 10.5.1990, had resolved that the land of the petitioners be released, after taking some portion of the land for the purpose of construction of road, with the understanding that on complying with the aforesaid resolution, the petitioners would withdraw the writ petitions, the respondents are not at liberty, not to release the land of the petitioners as resolved in that meeting.;