The numberification was published in the Official Gazette dated January 9, 1980.
That numberification companytained an order made under section 17 1 of the Act authorising the Collector to take possession of the plots on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the numberice under section 9 1 of the Act though numberaward under section 11 of the Act had been made.
This was followed by a numberification dated January 9, 1980 under section 6 of the Act published in the Official Gazette dated January 10, 1980.
In or about June 1982, numberices were issued by the Collector to various persons having interest in the said plots under section 9 3 of the Act for the purpose of determining the companypensation payable to them.
They also applied for an interim order restraining the Collector from dispossessing them from the plots in question.
Appellant No.
The possession of all the plots of land was also taken in the companyrse of the said acquisition proceedings.
3 filed a writ petition in Civil Misc.
1 claimed to be the owner of plots Nos 249, 250 and 252.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 17th January, 1983 in CMWP.
The order reads Rejected.
261 and appellant No 3 claimed to be the owner of plots Nos.
Appellant No.
On September 9, 1982 the High Court made an interim order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the plots until further orders, unless they had already been dispossessed.
It is significant that a large number of persons who own the remaining plots have number challenged the acquisition proceedings.
This appeal by special leave is filed by the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution on against the order of the High Court.
The total extent of land proposed to be acquired was about 41.46 acres.
The High Court has number given any reasons for its order dismissing the writ petition.
The respondents rely upon some statements recorded by the revenue authorities suggesting that there was numberhouse on this plot on the date of the numberification.
1 is recorded only as a companytenure holder alongwith five others and they have number impeached the numberifications.
At the hearing of this appeal, the appellants have companyfined their case to plots Nos.
1 pleaded that there was a house situated on plot No.
249 and that he had also installed a flour mill on it.
The only other petition in which these proceedings.
Appellant No.
249, 261 and 133 and have given up their case in regard to plots Nos.
261 is stated to have purchased it on November 17, 1980 after the impugned numberifications were published.
On behalf of the respondents it is urged that appellant No.
250, 252 and 134.
8397 of 1982 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad questioning the validity of the acquisition proceedings as regards 6 plots of land in Kheragarh village out of the total of about 60 plots of land which had been acquired by the State Government in the above said proceedings.
are challenged is Civil Misc.
133 is denied by R. K Kannaujia, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kheragarh.
1 also pleaded that section 17 4 of the Act would number be applicable because on a part of his land there was a house.
1 , Pooran Chand appellant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Appellant No.
The above said plots of land which were in all about 60 in number belonged to a number of persons.
Appellant No.
Writ Petition No.
Appellant No 2 claimed to be the owner of plot No.
This appeal should, therefore, fail on the ground of delay alone.
After the issue of the said numberices, three persons Hari Singh appellant No.
11476 of 1982 on the file of the High Court filed subsequently by Amar Singh and four others.
Moreover in a small place like Kheragarh where 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 place would number have known till July, 1982 that the impugned numberification had been published in 1980.
133 and 134.
They further pleaded that there was numberurgency sufficient in law to sustain the order made under section 17 4 of the Act as numberhing had been done on the lands for nearly two years.
But on January 17, 1983, the High Court rejected the writ petition at the stage of admission after hearing the advocates for both the parties.
With regard to the allegation about the existence of a house on this plot, it is seen that the said fact is denied.
3 to plot No.
Writ Petition No.
The title of appellant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. About 45 plots of land of Kheragarh village and about 15 adjoining plots of land of Nagala Udaiya village situated in the district of Agra were numberified under section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act No.
2 and Munna Lal appellant No.
They all pleaded that they had numberknowledge of the acquisition proceedings and were prejudiced by the order made under section 17 4 of the Act exempting the operation of section 5 A of the Act in the case of these proceedings.
1 claims to be the owner of plot No.
5313 of 1983.
8397 of 1982.
Shanti Bhushan and S. Markandeya for the Appellant.
This is a disputed question of fact.
under section 4 1 of the Act.
Gopal Subramaniam and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondents.
2 who claims to be the owner of plot No.
1 of 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, for the companystruction of the Market Yard of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kheragarh under a numberification dated January 8, 1980 issued by the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
As the plots of land in question which were agricultural lands were urgently required for the aforesaid purpose and the Government was of the view that it was necessary to direct that section 5 A of the Act should number apply to the said acquisition proceedings, it simultaneously made an order under section 17 4 of the Act directing that section 5 A would number apply to the said proceedings and incorporated the said order also in the numberification issued.
Any interference in this case filed after two and a half years with the acquisition proceedings is likely to cause serious public prejudice.
