HARI SINGH & ORS. v. r STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. '(A.P. SEN ~ E.S. VENKATARAMIAH. JJ.] ·B . April 6, 19$4 • Land Acquisition Act, I 894-s. 4 and s.6-Acq>lsltlon proceedings

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' VENKATARAMiAa, J.. About 45 plots of land of Kheragarh G village. and about 15 adjoining plots of land of Na~ala Udaiya village situated in the district of Agra were notified under ~ection 4 (I) of the Land Acpuisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition fora p'Ublic .purpose, namely, for the construction of the Market Yard of tl:te Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kl:teragarl:t under a·. noti fication dated .January 8, 1980 issued by the Government of the St~ti; Qf tJtt~r Praclesll· . As tl:te plots of land . in question w)Jich;

. HARi SINGH v. U; P. STATE (Venkataramiah, J.) 419 • A were agricu.Itur.al lands were urg·ently reqLtired for the aforesaid . purpose and tho Government was of the view that it was necessary to direct that section 5-A of the Act should not apply fo the said acquisition proceedings, it simultaneously made an' order under section· 17 (4) of The Ac! direeiing that section 5-A wouhl not· apply to the said proceedings and incorporated the said order also B in the notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Act. The · notification was published in the Official Gazette dated January 9, 1980. This. was followed by a notification dated January 9, 1980 under section 6 of the Act published in. the Official Gazette dated Janu~ry IQ, 198.0. That notification containe<) an/order made under section 17 (I) of the.Act authorising the Collector to take possession of the plots on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under section 9 (I) of the Act though no award under section 11 of the Act had been made. The above said plots of land which were in all aoout 60 in number belonged to a number of persons. The total extent of land proposed to be acquired was about 41 .46 acres. The possession of all the plots D .of land was also taken in the course of the said acquisition pro- ceedings. In or about June. 1982, notices were issued· by the Collector to various persons having interest in the said plots under. sectiop 9 (3) of the Act for the purpose 'of determining the compensation payable to them. After the issue o.f the said notices, three persons Hari Singh (appellant No. 1), Pooran Chand (appe- E llant No. 2) and Munna Lal (appellant No. 3) filed a writ petjtion in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8397 of 1982 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad questioning the validity of the acqui- sition proceedings as regards 6 plots of land in Kheragarh village out of th~ total of about 60 plots of land which had been acquired by the State Government in the above said prnceedlngs. Appellallt F No. 1 claimed to be the owner of plots Nos. 249, 250 and 252. Appellant No. 2 claimed. to be the owner 'of plot No. 261 and appellant No. 3 claime.d to be the owner of plots Nos. 133 and ·

134. Appellant No. I pleaded that there was a house sittiated on plot No. 249 and that he had also installed a flour mill on it. They all pleaded thllt they had . uo knowledge· ot the. acquisition · proceedings and were prejudiced by the order made under section 17 (4) of the Act exemptiag the operation of section 5-A of the Act in the case of these proceedingJ. · They further pleaded that there was no urgency sufficient in Jaw to sustain the order made under.. section 17 (4) of the Act as nothing had been done on the H Jiirtds for nearly two years. Appellant No. I also pleaded that

We have been taken through the writ petition, counter affi- davits. and other papers filed in the High Court and· in this Court. D At the .out set we are of the view. that the writ petition filed in July, 1982 questioning. the notification issued in 1anuary, 1980 after a delay of nearly two and a half years is liable to be dis· missed on the ground of !aches only. It is.no doubt true ·that th~. appellant have pleaded that they did not know anything about E the notifications which had been published in the Gazelle till they eame to ·know of the notices issued under section 9 (3) of the Act but the'y have not pleaded that there was .no. publication in the locality ·of the public notice or' \he substance.of the noti- . fication as required by . section 4 (1) of the Act. Jt should be presumed .. that official acts would have been performed· duly as. ·: F required by law. It is significant that a large number of persons who own the. remainin~ plots have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. J"he only other petition in wh!ch these proceedings. are challenge'd is Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. I 1476 of 1982 on the file of the High Court filed subsequently by. Amar Singh and (our others. Moreoverin a small place like Kheragarh where G these plots are situate, the acquisition of these lands-would be the. talk of the town in' a shortwhile and it is difficult to believe that the appellant who are residents of that .pla'ce would not have kriown till July, ·1982 that the impugned notification had been published in 1980. Any interference in this case filed after· two H ' and a half years with the acquisition proceedings is likely to cause serious public prejudice. This apl'eal should, therefore, fail on the ground ~of delay)lone. ·

HAR\ SiNGH v. u. p, STATE (Venkotaramiah, J,) 421

• Now even·onmerits there appears to be no substance in the A case of the appellants.

At the.hearing of this appeal, the appellants have confined their case to plots Nos. 249, 26! and 133 and have given up their case in regard to pl?ts Nos. iso, 252 iµid 134, B Appellant No. 1 claims to be the owner of plot No. 249. On behalf of the respondents it is urged that appellant No. I is recorded only as a co-tenure hotqer alongwith five others and they have not impeached the notifications. With regard to the allegation about the existence of.a house on this plot, it is seen that the said fact is denied. · The respondents rely upon ·some c statements recorded by tlle ·revenue authorities -suggesting · that there was no house on this plot on the date of the notification. This is a disputed question of fact, Appellant. No. 2 who claims to be the owner of plot No. 261 is stated to have purchased it on November 17, 1980 after the impugned nol!fications were pub- lished. The title of appellant No. 3 to plot No. 133 is denied by ·D R. K Kannaujia, Secretary, Kri~hi Utpadari Mandi· Samiti, Kheragarh. In this sta,te of affairs where ther~ are disputed . questions of fact it cannot be said that the appellants have made out any case for interference tinder Article 226 of the Consti. - tution. ' E On behalf of the appellants reliance is, however, placed on a decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh & Ors.(1) In that decision the main point m~de out was that the acq"isition proceedings had been engineere!i ma/a fide by a State Minister. We· do not have any such allegation in the' present case; In the circumstances of this case we do not find that there is any ground .. to hold that the order made Ul)der section 17 (4) of the Act.exemp- ting the operation of seetion 5-A of th~ Act is bad in law even though there appears to be some administrative delay in commen- cing the constr11ction of the Market Yard. Some photographs of the la.nd produced before us, howevei;, show that the work of construction has already been commeneed. · G-0

We do not, .therefore, find that there is any ground to interfere •with the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition. The appeal fails and it is dismiS£ed with .costs. ··i H. S.K. Appeal dismissed. H (1). (1980] 1 $.C,R, I07i.