LexTHE COLLECTOR (DISTT. MAGISTRATE) ALLAHABAD AND ANR. versus RAJA RAM JAISWAL ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·/.l _, . ., THE COLLECTOR (DISTT. MAGISTRATE) ALLAHABAD AND ANR. v. RAJA RAM JAISWAL ETC. April 29, 1985 (D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ,) 995 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 section 4 (J), scope of-Acquisilion of Land for public purpose-Whether notification In the official gazette and causing public notice of the substance of such notification the. need of a ·rand for a public pur- pose, mandatory-Concept of pfejudice-Wlrere in a case, objections have been filed to the· acquisirion proceedings, pursuant to an earlier notification whether non publication and non notification of its substance in ihe locality and of a corrigendum thereof issued later would still vitiate the proceedingS under section 4 (/)-Effect of the world "shall" in section 4 (I)-When malafideS are attributed, imp/eading of the proper party· effected thereby' is obligatory-Ma/afides-Legal ma/afides. explained. ,,, Raja Ram Jaiswa1 along with the mC'inbers of his family purchased land bearing. p!Ot No. 26 with a building thereon admeasuring 2978 sq, yds. situated at K.P. Kakkar Road in Mclrch 1970. The plan for a sound proof air-condition .. ed cinema. theatre on the said plot subrriitted by hifn was sanctioned both by the District Magistrate and the local Municipality in December, 1970 and thereafter he applied for a certificate of approval under Rule 3 read with Rule 7 (2) of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 for construction of a Cinema theatre. The Hi~di Sabit:Ya Sammelan which _was initiaily formed a~ a voluntary organisation in 1910 and r<!gistered as a society under the Societies. Registr'ation Act on January 8, 1914 retaining the same naine had earlier acquired and taken possession from t~e Allahabad Municipal Board land admeasuring 7315 sq. yds. and in which a municipal school was located for purpose of building "Sangraha .. laya" or a museum-cum.library-cum-reading room. However no museUm has come up and the land Hes vacant. This Sammelan raised objec·tions to the grant of a permit for the constructions of the cinema theatre as in its view a theatre and a research cum study centre can go ill-together. Overruling the objections, the District Magistrate, the Licensing Authority urider the U.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 granted the requisite certificate of approval, on March 24, 1972, under RUie 3 which would .in law imply that having regard to the provisions of the 1955 Act, and 1951 Rules, there was no legal impedirRent to the construction of a cinerna theatre on plot No. 26. Having failed to thwi:trt the gr~nt of certific~te of approv.~1, t~e S~mmelan wrot~ a letter on Octobei 13J A B c D E F G 996 SUPREMB COURT RBRORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R. A 1971 fOr acquiring land bearing plot No. 26 admcasuring approic.imately 286S sq. yds. on the ground that' it was Deeded for a public purpose namely for exlension of Hindi Sangrahalaya of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag. This Notification was publi'ihed in the U.P. Government Gazette on February ", 19_74. A notice under section 4 (1) bearing the same dafe was served upon' the petitioner as also the snme was published in the locality,' the petitioner challeng· ed the val . .idity of the notification on diverse grounds in Writ Petition No, ' B 1932(74 and obtained interim stay. of taking over possession. c D E F ,G >I H ·.In the meantime, by Notification dated February r, 1975, the earlier Noti· fication dated January 31, 1974 was cancelled and a fresh Notification was issued to acquire uland bearing No. 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds." and published in the lJ.P .. Gar:ette on February 15,'"1975. Consequently .Writ Petition No. 1932174 was JZot dismis,.ed a" !nfructuou1:. A notice dated March 6, 1975 under ~ection 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act wa'i served upon the petitioner inviting . him t6 file his objections, if any. The" petitioner filed detailed objections .on March 8, 1975 inter Olia contending that the acquisition is for a complilly_1,and the pre-requisite for acquisition for a company having not been carried out, the · ar.quisition is bad in law. It was also contended that the petitioner. is tiot the owner or plot No. fi2 ad measuring 8265 sq. yds. Promptly on March., 13, 1975, a. corringendum was issued and publ.ished. in- the Gazette on March 22",;·1975 correcting the notification dated. February 6, ~975 to read that, instead of,, plot No. 62 Plot, No. 26 be read and instead of area >265 sq. yds., 2865 sq. YdS.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.