3446 of 1987 filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffarnagar deserves to be allowed and as a companysequence thereof Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
3447 of 1987 on the other hand has been preferred by Respondents 1 and 2 asserting that even the Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act should have been quashed by the High Court in its entirety and number only in so far as it invoked Section 17 4 of the Act.
After the said letter had been received Smt.
289 aforesaid on 7th June, 1978, The purpose for which Respondents 1 and 2 purchased Plot No.
The writ petition filed by Respondents 1 and 2 in the High Court indicates that Smt.
Dhanwanti Agarwal, the second one in favour of Smt.
But it was held that on that ground even though quashing of the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was justified the High Court was number right in quashing the Notification under Section 4 1 in its entirety.
Santosh Kumari were wives of two gazetted officers and the third purchaser Ram Kumar too was a Government servant.
In the companynter affidavit which was filed on behalf of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Muzaffarnagar in the said writ petition it was stated in paragraph 20 with regard to the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 20th January, 1981 that some of the land being of gazetted officers, they succeeded in exerting pressure on the Land Acquisition Officer to submit a wrong report.
Santosh Kumari the other vendee from Respondents 1 and 2 referred to above made an application before the State Government stating that Plot No.
289 was shown by them in their writ petition filed before the High Court as companystruction of a residential companyony.
The Respondents 1 and 2 challenged the Notification dated 26th October, 1978 and 27th October, 1978 referred to above before the High Court in Writ Petition No.
Dhanwanti Agarwal and Smt.
As seen above it was the own case of Respondents 1 and 2 in their writ petition before the High Court that Smt.
The effect of the issue of the said Notification was that dealers of the said 54 companymodities had to shift their existing place of business to the Principal Market Yard.
The first of these three sale deeds had been executed in favour of one Smt.
25 of 1964 declaring that with effect from the date of publication of the Notification in the Gazette the wholesale transactions of agricultural produce in respect of Muzaffarnagar market area specified in Schedule A shall be companyducted only on the place within the Muzaffarnagar Principal Market Yard.
289 had been restored back or number in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
2970 of 1979 remained unimplemented and the issue of fresh Notifications under Sections 4 1 and 6 was in companyourable exercise of power.
Indeed, as seen above, the Government was number inclined to agree with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer because had it been so there would have been numberoccasion either for calling for a report from the Director Mandi Parishad or companyvening a meeting to companysider the matter or to require the District Magistrate to submit his own report.
The matter was ultimately referred to the Law Department.
According to them in furtherance of that purpose they executed three sale deeds one each on 10th November, 1978, 16th November, 1978 and 7th December, 1978.
On the receipt of the said letter a meeting was companyvened at Government level on 16th November, 1981 attended by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Agriculture Secretary and Director, Mandi Parishad.
The Notification issued on 20th March, 1975 included Plot No.
3447 of 1987 filed by the Respondents 1 and 2 deserves to be dismissed.
3447 of 1987 filed by Respondents 1 and 2 deserves to be allowed and the Notification dated 20th May, 1982 under Section 4 1 of the Act deserves to be quashed in its entirety in substitution of the judgment of the High Court quashing the same only in so far as it invoked Section 17 4 of the Act.
According to him the Government by including that portion of the land also in these Notifications dated 20th and 21st May, 1982 really took steps to acquire its own land which indicated lack of application of mind at the time of issuing these Notifications.
289 from acquisition proceedings.
We have already indicated above that the original record was produced before us by learned companynsel appearing for the State Government and from its perusal it appeared that after Smt.
163 of 1979.
The Notification dated 26th October, 1978 was followed by a Notification under Section 6 dated 27th October, 1978.
289 from the acquisition proceedings.
Santosh Kumari had made the said application the question as to whether a Notification under Section 6 1 of the Act companyld be issued in companytinuation of the Notificition dated 26th October, 1978 under Section 4 1 of the Act came up for companysideration before the State Government.
1 and 2 and their transferees so that Respondents Nos.
On the basis of these submissions it was urged by learned companynsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that number only the judgment of the High Court under appeal deserved to be companyfirmed, Civil Appeal No.
In this companynection it was further submitted by learned companynsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that numbermaterial change in the factual position had taken place between 20th January, 1981 and 20th May, 1982 and for this reason also Section 17 4 of the Act companyld number have been invoked.
At this place another intervening circumstance may be numbericed.
This judgment of the High Court was challenged by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffarnagar before this Court in Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently, however, another Notification was issued on 26th October, 1978 under Section 4 1 read with Section 17 4 of the Act with regard to 19.47 acres of land including Plot No.
Santosh Kumari and the third one in favour of Shri Janardhan Das and Ram Kumar.
1 and 2 and their transferees within a week from today.
It was also pointed out by learned companynsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that undue delay had been caused in issuing the fresh Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act on 20th May, 1982 after the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 20th January, 1981 which itself indicated that there was numberoccasion for invoking Section 17 4 of the Act.
2970 of 1979 and to take steps to ensure companypliance of the said direction.
Muzaffarnagar filed Writ Petition Civil No.
The original record which was produced before us also indicated that at numberstage after the receipt of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 20th January, 1981 had the Government taken a decision that it was number necessary to acquire the plot.
Santosh Kumari were wives of two gazetted officers.
A companyy of this Notification forms part of the record of Civil Appeal No.
Copies of these letters have been annexed to the companynter affidavit.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.87 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Dhanwanti Agarwal and Smt.
The appropriate authority will then hold an inquiry into the objections under Section 5A and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
1318 of 1982 in this Court challenging the aforesaid Notification.
3446 of 1987 and it indicates that Schedule A thereto companytains 54 companymodities of agricultural produce.
In the said writ petition a Notification dated 20th May, 1982 issued under Section 4 1 read with Section 17 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act and also the companysequential Notification dated 21st May, 1982 under Section 6 of the Act with regard to Plot No.
The original record also indicated that after the receipt of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer the file was moving above for sometime to ensure as to whether possession over Plot No.
The record further indicated that there appeared to be a divergence of opinion in regard to the applicability of the second proviso to Section 6 1 of the Act inserted by the State of U.P. and the ultimate view which prevailed was that it was expedient to issue a fresh Notification under Section 4 1 also and it was thus that in place of issuing a Notification under Section 6 1 in companytinuation of the Notification dated 26th October, 1978 under Section 4 1 , fresh Notifications both under Sections 4 1 and 6 of the Act were issued on 20th May, 1982 and 21st May, 1982 respectively.
In pursuance of the aforesaid direction inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was made and the Land Acquisition Officer after giving the parties an opportunity to file their objections and produce evidence and hearing the arguments of their learned companynsel, submitted a report on 20th January, 1981, that is, after about 15 months of the direction referred to above issued by this Court in Civil Appeal No.
1 and 2 and their transferees may have an opportunity to file their objections to the proposed acquisition within three weeks from the date of service of the companyy of the numberification upon each of them.
6789 of 1982.
It was urged that since the said proviso companytemplated that in companyputing the period of three years for issuing a Notification under Section 6 prescribed by the first proviso to sub section 1 thereof the time during which the State Government was prevented by or in companysequence of any order of any companyrt from making such declaration shall be excluded, it was open to the State Government to issue a Notification under Section 6 even on 20th May, 1982 when the fresh Notification under Section 4 1 was issued and the issue of the fresh Notification under Section 4 1 invoking Section 17 4 of the Act was number bona fide and was apparently a case of companyourable exercise of power.
In his letter dated 3rd December, 1981 the District Magistrate inter alia pointed out that the land of Plot No.
This Court agreed with the High Court in so far as it had held that the urgency clause had been wrongly applied.
Santosh Kumari who had purchased portions of Plot No.
The writ petition aforesaid had been filed by an association of traders dealing in gur, khandsari and foodgrains only.
The District Magistrate by his letter made a request that Notification under Section 6 1 of the Act may be issued immediately.
The rest of the judgment was, however, maintained with a direction that companyies of the Notifications be served personally on Respondents Nos.
289 which was the subject matter of Notifications dated 26th October, 1978 and 27th October, 1978 and with regard to which the said Notifications had number been quashed.
After making necessary inquiries the Government ultimately decided number to release Plot No.
289 may be exempted from acquisition.
1 and 2 and their transferees by invoking the urgency clause which has been set aside, the appellant will restore possession of the same to Respondents Nos.
Dhanwanti Agarwal and Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
289 was companycerned.
289 had made a declaration saying that there was numberhouse in their names in Muzaffarnagar and 2 that even though Mandi Samiti had companystructed a building it was lying idle inasmuch as numbertrader was prepared to shift to these premises.
In pursuance of the deliberations of that meeting the District Magistrate was requested to look into the matter and send his companyments vide letter dated 21st November, 1981 and in response to that letter the District Magistrate vide his letter dated 3rd December, 1981 informed the State Government that for reasons stated therein it was number advisable to exempt or exclude Plot No.
Having heard learned companynsel for the parties we are of the opinion that Civil Appeal No.
Satish Chandra, Ms. Purnima Bhat and E.C. Agarwala for the Appellants.
As already pointed out in the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in this Court reference has been made to the two letters given by Smt.
The report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer was to the effect that Plot No.
An association of traders in gur, khandsari and foodgrains, namely, the Gur, Khandsari and Grain Merchants Association Regd. ,
Writ Petition No.
289 aforesaid whereas the subsequent Notification which is dated 30th August, 1975 did number include the said plot along with several other plots.
This Notification really seems to be with regard to that portion of land which even though included in the earlier Notification dated 20th March, 1975 had been excluded in the subsequent Notification dated 30th August, 1975.
About 5 months thereafter, however, this Notification was superseded and another Notification was issued under Section 4 1 with regard to only 60 acres of land.
2970 of 1979.
The plea raised by them was that there was numberurgency and companysequently the inquiry companytemplated by Section 5 A of the Act companyld number be dispensed with by invoking Section 17 4 thereof.
Before dealing with the respective submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties it is necessary to give some more facts.
The Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act was quashed in part in so far as it invoked Section 17 4 of the Act and thereby dispensed with inquiry under Section 5A of the Act whereas the Notification under Section 6 was quashed as a whole with regard to the aforesaid Plot No.
3446 3447 of 1987.
This plea found favour with the High Court and the two Notifications mentioned above were quashed on 6th June, 1979 in so far as Plot No.
289 with an area of 3 bighas 14 biswa situate in village Kukra, District Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh were challenged by Ratan Prakash Mangal and Kuldeep Singh who are Respondents 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No.
2970 of 1979.
According to learned companynsel there was in any case numberjustification for the Government to include even that portion of the land other than Plot No.
The effect of the direction issued by this Court was that numbertrader companyld be companypelled to companye to the market yard unless shops were provided.
P. Rao, B.D. Agarwal, P.K. Chakraverty, Ms. Sandhya Goswami and R.C. Verma for the Respondents.
The companynter affidavit further indicates that while the matter was under companysideration Smt.
A Notification dated 20th November, 1981 was issued by the State Government under clause b of subsection 2 of Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhyniyam, 1964 hereinafter referred to as P. Act No.
3447 of 1987.
3446 of 1987 and the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
In submitting the said report, a companyy of which has been placed on record, it appears that the Land Acquisition Officer was impressed mainly by two circumstances 1 That Smt.
289 should number be acquired in view of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer and further that since the Notification dated 26th October, 1978 under Section 4 1 had been published on 25th November, 1978 and a period of three years had elapsed any acquisition would be invalid.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 11th March, 1987 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
6789 of 1982.
3446 of 1987 has been preferred by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffarnagar for whom the aforesaid plot had been acquired with a prayer that the judgment of the High Court may be set aside.
Initially a Notification dated 20th March, 1975 was issued under Section 4 1 of the Act for acquiring nearly 80 acres of land for the public purpose of companystruction of a market yard for the appellant, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffarnagar.
Since the appellant has obtained possession of the land from Respondent Nos.
2970 of 1979 with a direction to make inquiry under Section 5A of the Act and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law, the second proviso to Section 6 1 of the Act as inserted by the State of Uttar Pradesh by the Land Acquisition U.P. Amendment Act 28 of 1972 was clearly attracted.
About four months prior to the issue of these Notifications Respondents 1 and 2 had purchased Plot No.
Notices were issued to the respondents and statements were made by learned companynsel appearing for the companycerned respondents that the Mandi Samiti had undertaken planned programme of companystructing shops and that 120 more shops can be companystructed within two months apart from the shops which had been companystructed and allotted to the intending traders and dealers.
For the sake of companyvenience these two persons shall hereinafter be referred to as Respondents 1 and 2.
Santosh Kumari on the basis of which further inquiry had to be made by the State Government and ultimately a decision had to be taken that in place of issuing a Notification under Section 6 1 of the Act in companytinuation of the Notification dated 26th October, 1978 under Section 4 1 fresh Notifications under Sections 4 1 and 6 may be issued.
Dhanwanti Agarwal and Smt.
After the issue of the earlier Notification dated 26th October, 1978 a period of nearly 3 1/2 years had expired when the fresh Notification dated 20th May, 1982 under Section 4 1 was issued and apparently the necessity to acquire Plot No.
On this view the appeal was allowed in part and the judgment of the High Court was set aside in so far as it quashed the Notification under Section 4 1 of the Act in its entirety.
Dhanwanti Agarwal, one of the vendees from Respondents 1 and 2 referred to above requested the State Government vide her letter dated 2nd September, 1981 to reconsider the matter.
289 was situated in the middle of the land acquired under the Notifications in question and that it was necessary to acquire the land of the said plot also for a smooth companystruction of the market yard.
