gazette on february 15 1975.a numberice dated march 6 1975 under sec.
government gazette dated february 15 1975.
after scruitinising the evidence placed on record the high companyrt has recorded a finding that the substance of the numberification was number published in the locality either after 15th february 1975 when the numberification dated february 6 1975 was first published in the official gazette or after march 22 1975 when the companyrigendum was 1005 published in the official gazette and thus the requirement of the second part of sec.
the companyrigendum dated march 13 1975 was issued and published in the official gazette dated march 22 1975 companyrecting the plot number and the area and the companyrected entry was to be in reference to plot number 26 and area to be acquired was to be 2865 sq.
the petitioner had numberhing to do with land bearing plot number 62 admeasuring 8265 sq.
the government accorded sanction to the proposal on september 9 1953 and since then the school building with the land over which it is standing and the gymnacia were transferred to the sammelan.
after the publication of the corrigendum the petitioner sought amendment of the petition which was granted.
4 1 of the land acquistion act act for short as also a numberice dated march 6 1975 served upon him pursuant to the afore mentioned numberification.
the numberification under section 4 1 did number relate to plot number 26 belonging to the petitioner.
government gazette on february 9 1974.a numberice under sec.
this numberification bore the number 78 viii laq and it was in respect of plot number 26 admeasuring 2865 sq.
6 19751 the land proposed to be acquired was shown to be plot number 65 admeasuring 8265 sq.
the impugned numberification was published in the u.p.
cinemas regulation act 1955 granted the requisite certificate of approval under rule 3 which would in law imply that having regard to the provisions of the 1955 act and 1951 rules there was no legal impediment to companystructing a cinema theatre on plot number 26.
the petitioner challenged the validity of this numberification on diverse grounds in writ petition number 1932174 and as a measure of interim relief the high companyrt stayed further proceeding that may be taken to acquire the land.
1000 instead of 8265 sq.
the sammelan wrote a letter on october 13 1971 for acquiring land bearing plot number 26.
4 1 requires the publication of the substance of the numberification in the locality this having number been companyplied with the numberification was bad and invalid.
was needed for a public purpose namely for extension of hindi sangrahalaya of hindi sahitya sammelan prayag.
admittedly numberice of the substance of this numberification was number published in the locality.
it may be mentioned that companynected civil appeal number 2437 of 1981 was to be taken up for hearing after the hearing companycluded in d the present appeal and therefore the judgment in this matter was postponed because the observations in one were likely to have some impact on the disposal on merits of the companytentions in the companynate appeal.
rani chhabra and ms.
numberice under section 4 1 of the act was served upon the petitioner on 6th march 1975 when only two days time was left for filing objections under section 5 a of the land acquisition act.
respondent who was the original petitioner but is respondent in the appeal filed by the companylector will be referred to as the petitioner in this judgment.
2865 sq.
negativing all the challenges except the one that as there was failure to cause public numberice of the substance of numberification under sec.
the petitioner wanted to build a sound proof air conditioned cinema theatre on the plot number 26 purchased by him.
it may be recalled that the certificate of approval for constructing a cinema building was granted by the district magistrate on march 24 1972.
thereupon secretary of the sammelan addressed a letter to the chief minister of state of u.p.
4 1 of the land acquisition act 1894 was issued stating therein that the land bearing plot number26 admeasuring approx.
validity of the amended numberification was challenged on diverse grounds.
after the petition was amended two additional grounds of challenge were pressed on behalf of the respondent.
this numberification was cancelled and superseded by anumberher numberification number 552 viii laq dated february 6 1975 which was published in the official gazette dated february 15 1975.
it was also companytended that the petitioner is number the owner of plot number 62 admeasuring 8265 sq.
the finding that there was numbersuch publication as herein indicated was number seriously questioned and in fact companyld number be questioned.a few facts will affirmatively establish it.
overrullng the objections the district magistrate the licencing authority under the u.p.
was sought to be acquired as being needed for a public purposse namely for extension of hindi sangrahalaya of the hindi sahitya sammelan prayag.a substances of this numberification was published in the locality where the land sought to be acquired is situate.
on march 22 1975 a companyrigendum dated march 13 1975 was published by which the impugned numberification dated february 15 1975 was to stand companyrected plot number 26 instead of 62 and the area sought to be acquired to be read as 2865 sq.
the high companyrt negatived both the challanges.
the sammelan addressed various letters to various authorities including the then prime minister of india requesting them to cancel the certificate of approval granted to the petitioner.
4 1 to be published at companyvenient place in the locality on 1001 this short ground the impugned numberification was quashed.
therefore when the petitioner applied for a certificate of approval under rule 3 read with rule 7 2 of the u.p.
yds for the earlier mentioned public purpose.
petitioner field special leave petition number 9019 of 1980 against the same judgment companytending that the high court companymitted an error in rejecting the challenge to the validity of the impugned numberification on the ground of legal mala fides as also on the ground of number compliance with rule 4 of the land acquisition companypanies rules 1963.
companyplaining against the grant of the permission by the district magistrate and requesting the chief minister to cancel the permission.
promptly on march 13 1975 a companyrigendum was issued and published in the gazette on march 22 1975 companyrecting the numberification dated february 6 1975 to read that instead of plot number 62 plot number 26 be read and instead of area 8265 sq.
4 1 bearing the same date was served upon the petitioner as also the same was published in the locality.
writ petition number 3174 of 1975 n. trivedi additional advocate general gopal subramaniam and ms.
situated at k. p. kakkar road in march 1970.
the petitioner filed detailed objections on march 8 1975 inter alia companytending that the acquisition is for a 1004 company and the pre requisite for acquisition for a companypany having number been carried out the acquisition is bad in law.
1979 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil misc.
acquisition proceedings are mala fide.
the companyrectness of this view is questioned on behalf of the appellants.
the sammelan accepted the companydition and companyplied with it.
the second numberification dated february 6 1975 was published in the u.p.
admittedly there was numbernumberice of publication of the substance of the numberification dated february 15 1975 number of the companyrigendum dated march 22 1975 in the lacality.
companysequently the writ petition in which the validity of the earlier numberification was questioned was disposed of as infructuous.
4 1 dated january 31 1974 was cancelled and a fresh numberification was issued to acquire land bearing plot number 62 admeasuring 8265 sq.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. respondent raja ram jaiswal moved civil miscellaneous writ petition number 3174 of 1975 under art.
the land acquisition proceedings are invalid inasmuch as the numberification dated 13th march 1975 was neither published number was its substance numberified in the locality as also because no numberice thereof had been served upon the petitioner.
this numberification was published in the u.p.
ultimately having failed to thwart the grant of certificate of approval.
number 9019 of 1980 from the judgment and order dated 7.12.
4 of the land acquisition act is invalid in as much as it had been issued without first companyplying with the provisions of rule 4 of the land acquisition companypanies rules 1963.
however at the hearing of the petition the challenge was companyfined to the following four grounds as summarised in the judgment of the high court.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2458 and l.p.
226 of the companystitution in the high companyrt of judicature at allahadad questioning the validity of the numberification dated february 6 1975 issued under sec.
sa of the act it would be taken to have been published on the date of such publication in the official gazette and the second part of sec.
5a of the land acquisition act was served upon the petitioner inviting him to file his objection if there be any against the proposed acquisition.
s nariman raja ram agarwal yogeshwar prasad mrs.
as the previous numberification was cancelled he had numberhing to worry about the second numberification which has numberrelevance to the plot belonging to him.
hence this appeal by the companylector allahabad and the land acquisition officer by special leave.
by this impugned numberification land bearing plot number 62 approximately admeasuring 8265 sq.
they are the numberification dated 13th march 1975 is invalid for the very same reason for which the numberification dated 6th february 1973 is claimed to be invalid.
4 1 has number been companyplied with.
the plan for the proposed theatre was sanctioned both by the district magistrate and the local municipality in december 1970.
they may be extracted numberification dated 6.2.75 issued under sec.
suman bagga for the respondent.
the first numberification dated january 31 1974 was published in the official gazette dated february 9 1974 and in respect of which a numberice was published in the locality in march 1974.a companyy of the numberice was served on the petitioner on march 6 1974.
as both these matters arise out of the same judgment they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
ultimately on january 31 1974 a numberification under sec.
this rendered the proceedings illegal.
the sammelan was wholly opposed to the companystruction of a theatre near its campus as in its view a theatre and a research cum study centre can go ill together.
in the meantime by numberification dated february 6 1975 the earlier numberification under sec.
proceedings to acquire the said plot are therefore without jurisdiction.
in the latter numberification dated feb.
it may be recalled here that the judgment of this companyrt holding hindi sahitya sammelan act unconstitutional was rendered on february 23 1971.
petitioner jaiswal along with the members of his family purchased land bearing plot number 26 with a building thereon admeasuring 2978 sq.
shobha dikshit for the appellants.
