Abdul Ali and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Prakash Chandra Verma

By means of the instant writ petition petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notifications dated 17.12.1992 and 16th June 1993 and the award dated 9.8.1989 in so far as it relates to the petitioners and the letter No. 431 dated 22.9.1993.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute (i.e. plot No. 9 area 7 acre 299 links (2.955 Hectares) situated in Village Imilia, Tahsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau) and the respondents be further directed not to expunge the names of the petitioners from revenue record.

By notification dated 17.12.1992, the notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') on 16.3.1989 had been modified by way of corrigendum and the land of the petitioners being Gata No. 8 measuring area 0.168 Hectare of the Village Imiliya has been added and by notification dated 16.6.1993, the notification dated 5.4.1989 has been modified and the notification issued u/s 6 of the Act and the aforesaid plot of the petitioners has been included.

Notification issued u/s 4 of the Act is issued declaring the intention of the Government to acquire the land for public purpose or for the purpose enumerated in the Act under definition Clause. In the notification issued u/s 6 of the Act the need for public purpose is declared. After the notification u/s 6 of the Act the order of acquisition is issued u/s 7 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government or by the person authorized by the State Government.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Others, (judgment delivered by three judges bench of Hon''ble Apex Court comprising of Hon. Mr. Justice A.K. Sarkar, Hon. Mr. Justice R. Mudholkar and Hon. Mr. Justice K.N. Wanchoo), Hon. A.K. Sarkar, J. has observed that "this argument seems to me clearly ill founded. Now a notification u/s 4 of the Act will be exhausted if declaration is made under it (under Section 6 of the Act) in respect of the entire area covered". In the same case, Hon. K.N. Wanchoo, J. has held that once the declaration u/s 6 of the Act is made, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act must be exhausted, for it has served its purpose. On the same analogy, once the order of acquisition is passed by the State Government u/s 7 of the Act based on notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act, the notifications u/s c and 6 of the Act stood exhausted as they have served their purpose. It is needless to say that what is exhausted cannot be revived and modified by way of corrigendum.

In the garb of corrigendum there cannot be acquisition of property as defied under the land acquisition Act. Addition of the plot by way of corrigendum is illegal and contrary to the provisions contained under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the land has not been acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. to say no fresh notification has been issued u/s 4 and 6 of the Act and no further proceedings had been drawn as a consequence thereof.

Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the writ petition is hereby allowed.