LexKRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, MUZAFFARNAGAR (U.P.), ETC. versus RATAN PRAKASH MANGAL & ORS., ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A· B c KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT!, MUZAFFARNAGAR (U.P.), ET,C. v. RATAN PRAKASH MANGAL & ORS., ETC. MAY 6, 1988 [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Challenging notification issued under section 4( 1) read with section 17(4) and consequential notification issued under section 6-0f-For acquisition of plot of /and. These two appeals--Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 1987 and Civil Appeal No. 3447 of 1987-were filed in this Court against the judgment of the High Court in the Writ Petition No. 6789 of 1982. Ratan Prakash Mangal and Kuldip Singh, respondents Nos. l and 2 in the Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 1987 and the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 3447 of 1987, D had tiled the said writ petition challenging a notification dated 20th May, 1982, issued under section 4(1) read with section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) and also the consequential notification dated 21st May, 1982, issued under section 6 of the Act with regard to a plot No. 289. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was quashed in part in so far as it invoked Section 17(4) of the Act, and the notifica- E tion under section 6 was quashed as a whole with regard to the said plot No. 289. The Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 1987 was preferred by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffar Nagar for which the said plot had been acquired, for setting aside the judgment of the High Court. Civil Appeal No. 3447 of 1987 was preferred by Ratan Prakash Mangal and F Kuldip Singh afore-mentioned hereinafter referred to as respondents Nos. 1 & 2 asserting that the notification under section 4(1) should have been quashed by the High Court in its entirety and not only in so far it invoked section 17(4) of the Act. Initially, a Notification dated 20th March, 1975 was issued under section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring land, including the plot No. 289, for G construction of a market yard for the appellant Krishi Utpadan Mandi Sa mi ti. Later, this Notification was superseded by another Notification dated 30th August, 1975 issued under section 4(1) with regard to land which did not include the said plot. Subsequently, another Notification dated 26th October, 1978, was issued under section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act with regard to land, including the plot above- H mentioned. The Notification dated 26th October, 1978 was followed by 182 KRISHI UTPADAN SAMIT! v. R.P. MANGAL 183 a Notification dated 27th October, under section 6. Prior to the issue of these Notifications, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased the said plot No. 289. The said respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had challenged the Notifications dated 26th October, 1978 and 27th October, 1978 by a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court had quashed the two Notifications in so far as Plot No. 289 was concerned. This Judgment of the High Court had been challenged by Krishi Utpa- dan Mandi Samiti before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2970Of1979. This Court had held that even though the quashing of the Notifi- cation under Section 6 had been justified, the High Court had not been right in quashing the Notification under section 4(l)°in its entirety, and had set aside the Judgment of the High Court in so far as it had quashed the Notification under section 4( l) in its entirety, while main faining the rest of the Judgment with a direction regarding inquiry under Section SA into the objections of the respondents Nos. l and 2 to the proposed acquisition etc. In pursuance of the said direction, inquiry under sec- tion SA had been made and the Land Acquisition Officer had submitted a report on 20th January, 1981, after about 15 months of the direction above~said of this Court, to the effect that the Plot No. 289 might be exempted from acquisition. The Government did not agree with the said report and issued the Notifications impugned in present appeals. Allowing Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 1987, and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 3447 of 1987, the Court, · HELD: There was no doubt with regard to the legal position that the Report dated 20th January, 1981 of the Land Acquisition Officer A B c D E was not binding on the State Governmen~ and it was still open to it to continue the proceedings for the acquisition of the Plot No. 289 notwith~ F standing the said report. The Government had its reason why in place of issuing a Notification under section 6(1) of the Act in continuation of the Notification dated 26th Octob
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.