RAVI S.DHAVAN,J. - (1.) RAM Pratap, Mahesh Prasad, Gyan Chand, all sons of Ramanand, Resident of Village Umarpur Niwa, Pargana and Tehsil Chail, District Allahabad, and Smt. lakshmi Devi, Wife of Onkar Nath, Resident of Village Umarpur Niwa, Pargana and Tehsil Chail, District Allahabad, have filed the present writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, as a consequence of which the State of U.P. and the Collector, Allahabad, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Nagar Mahapalika), Allahabad, arranged to issue notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the petitioners' land. The petitioner's land is only part of the land which had been acquired for a project described as in the notification for a park and a road. The petitioners have arrayed, the following as party respondents: 1. State of U.P., 2. Collector, Allahabad, 3. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Nagar Mahapalika), Allahabad, 4. Allahabad Development Authority, through its Chairman, 5. Ministry of Defence, through its Secretary, 6. Sub -Area Commander, Allahabad and 7. Cantonment Board, Allahabad. The petitioners contend, all of them, that they are Bhumidhars in possession. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contend that they are Bhumidhars in possession of Plot No. 520, measuring 72 Biswas 16 Biswansis, Plot No. 526, measuring 1 Bigha 9 Biswa and Plot No. 527, measuring 15 Biswas, the total of which adds up to 2 Bigha 15 Biswa and 16 Biswansi, situate in Village Umarpur Niwa, Pargana and Tehsil Chail, District Allahabad. The petitioner No. 4, says that she is Bhumidhar and in possession of Plot No. 520, measuring 1 Biswa 5 Biswansi, in the same village. They contend it was only on 17th January. 1988. when a notice under Section 9(3) of the Act had been left in the village but not served on them that they came to know that their plots are acquired under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
(2.) THEY contend that they tried their best to locate the notifications in the Gazette, but could not get it. They contend that when they inquired, they were informed that these notifications had been published in the news papers, Amrit Prabhat and Swatantra Bharat. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is dated 12th November, 1987. The notification under Section 6 of the Act is dated 28th November, 1987. These notifications were published in Swatantra Bharat. a newspaper, on 3rd December, 1987. These notifications as published in Swatantra Bharat on 3rd December, 1987 are appended as Annexures -1 and 2 to the writ petition. The petitioners have quoted the text of the notifications in the writ petition. The petitioners contend that there was no urgency to eliminate and dispense the aplicability of Section 5 -A of the Act and resort to the power under Section 17. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that, regard being had to the subject for which the land was to be acquired, a fair opportunity should have been given by taking recoruse to and by making the provision under Section 5 -A available so that the persons, concerned, could file objections, to object to the acquisition of the land. It is contended that the purpose for acquisition was declared as a park and an approach road, the park in the case had been existing since the turn of the century and to deprive the persons whose land was acquired when the object of the acquisition was a park, the action resorted to is arbitrary. It is more arbitrary, when no ground, justification, exceptional circumstances existed to resort to special powers in cases of urgency, and to deprive a democratic method of permitting those whose properties were being acquired to file their objections. There was no unforeseen emergency to make use of powers under Section 17, and defeat the normally of the situation to hear objections under Section 5 -A of the Act.
(3.) THE petitioners further contend that they are scheduled castes and by a Government Order of the State of Uttar Pradesh their agricultural lands being their sole source of livelihood are not to be acquird. The petitioners refer to the Government Order issued by the Secretary, Revenue, issued to all the Collectors of Uttar Pradesh. This Government Order is dated 24th September, 1985. The Government Order has also issued instructions that lands of persons who are scheduled caste and are in possession of less than 3 -1/8 acres of land, are to be provided alternate land. The petitioners contend that they have not been offered any alternative. They further submit that even though the acquisition was made in 1987, as it is claimed, twelve years have passed and they have not received compenstion either nor the petitioners have any information of the deposit of the ocmpensation nor has it been stated by any of the respondents on record of this petition that the purpose for which the land was acquired, that is, laying a park, compensation has been deposited by the authority concerned (Allahabad Development Authority), for whose benefit the land was acquired. The petitioners again contend that there is another order issued by the Revenue Secretary to all the Collectors prohibiting further acquisition of land till compensation in pursuance of acquisiton is not paid. The petitioners, it is contended, have not been paid compensation. The petitioners contend that they have come to know that an area of four thousand acres of land had been acquired for the Allahabad Development Authority for planned Development and these respondents have been required to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 22 Crores which has not been deposited up to now and as such the plots in question, alleged to be acquired violate the sanction on which acquisition is made. The petitioners also submit that no public notice of substance has been issued in the locality either under Section 4 or Section 5 of the Act and the acquisition is vitiated by lack of notice.;