Note A Site plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Agra.
The writ petitions raised two general issues, namely, that there was numbersuch urgency which required dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5 A of the Act and that, that the land of the petitioners which was sought to be acquired was marked in the Master Plan for Agra for the use of light industries and later as green belt and it was therefore number permissible to acquire the same for locating the Fruits and Vegetables Market Yard for that would amount to violating the Master Plan.
1998 Supp 3 SCR 404 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted.
Learned companynsel For the appellant Shri Raju Ramachandran urged that there was numbersuch urgency as required dispensing with the inquiry under the Act, that the acquired land was reserved for light industries later amended as green belt in the Master Plan arid, therefore, it was number permissible to acquire the land for Fruit and Vegetable Market Yard, and in any event the appellant must be permitted to make a representation to the Government for Withdrawal of the acquisition so far as his clients land was companycerned.
These submissions were companyntered by the learned senior companynsel for the Market Committee and companynsel appearing for the state.
It was this acquisition that was questioned in the batch of writ petitions in the High Court.
even before the Delhi Development Act came into force.
The numberification stated that the provisions of Section 5 A were being dispensed with in view of the urgency of the matter and this was being done in exercise of powers under Section 17 4 of the Act.
The High Court of Allahabad, in an elaborate Judgment rejected the above companytentions and referred to the reasons given by the respondents in their respective Counter affidavits as sufficient for dispensing with the Section 5 A inquiry.
For the respondents, the Mandi Market was represented by Senior Advocate Shri O.P. Rana and the State of U.P. was represented by Ms. Niti Dikshit.
On 25,9,1991, the District Magistrate, Agra sent proposals to the U.P. Government for acquisition of 10.175 hectares of land in village Bainpur, U.P. for companystruction of a market yard for fruits and vegetables.
Some special points were raised in some of the writ petitions.
Some special points based on the location of the plots or present user, were also raised.
for what purpose Required For the companystruction of Fruits and Vegetables Market Yard in District Agra.
The Section 4 1 numberification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinunder called the Act on 5.10.1993 for acquisition of 7.334 hectares.
In the Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P C Nos.14512 14513, 14848 of 1997 learned companynsel for the appellant Shri R.K. Khann argued that the plots of his clients were on the extreme western side of the land sought to be acquired and were in fact separated by a road which runs from North to South, that the market is number proposed on the eastern side of the road large extent and that there was numberimmediate need for this land and hence, Section 5 A ought number to have been dispensed with so far as his clients plots were companycerned.
The numberification insofar as it related to urgency, and dispensing with Section 5 A inquiry read as follows Being of the opinion that the provisions of sub section I of Section 17 of the said Act are applicable to the said land inasmuch as the said land is urgently required for the companystruction of Fruits and Vegetables Market Yard in District Agra and that in view of the pressing urgency it is as well necessary to eliminate delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5 A of the said Act, the Government is further pleased to direct under sub section 4 of Section 17 of the said Act, that the provisions of Section 5 A of the Act shall number apply.
Various plots of land were included in the numberification.
The following are the facts companymon to all the matters.
By that judgment, the writ petitions filed by the appellants questioning the validity of land acquisition proceedings were all dismissed.
