Satish Kumar Agarwal v. State of U. P — 1979 DIGILAW 679 (ALL)

JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their land in pursuance of the scheme framed under the provisions of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). 2. The petitioners are tenure-holders of plots Nos. 2025, 2030, 2031, 2042, 2043 and 2045 having an area of 2.43 acres and plots Nos. 2017, 2018, 2956, 2957, 2958 and 2962 having an area of 1.41 acres in the District of Mathura. A notice under Section 28 of the Act notifying, that the scheme known as Mahauli Bhumi Vikas Evam Grah-Sthan Yojana No. 1 Mathura has been framed, was published weekly in three consecutive weeks, on 20th Oct., 1973, 27th of Oct. 1973 and 3rd of Nov. 1973 in U. P. Gazette and also in the local daily paper Amar Ujala. This notice specified the boundaries of the area which was to be comprised in the scheme and also the date, time and place at which a map of the area, particulars of the scheme and details of the land proposed to be acquired could be seen and the date by which the objections to the scheme could be made. A notice dated 3rd of Nov., 1973 under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam was also issued and it is alleged on behalf of the respondents that the notices were served on the petitioners. Objections against the scheme were filed under Section 30 of the Adhiniyam and these objections were heard by the Niyo-jan Samiti of the parishad. Thereupon the scheme was submitted by the Board constituted under the Adhiniyam to the State Government for sanction. The State Government, in due exercise of its powers under Section 31 (2) of the Adhiniyam and under Section 59 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 sanctioned the aforesaid scheme published under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, as a Special Yojana No. 1 Mathura Scheme and notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam was accordingly, issued on 10th of Sept., 1977. 3. 3. It has been averred on behalf of the petitioners that in the last week of Feb., 1979 they came to know that their aforesaid plots were being marked and measured by the staff of Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and thereupon they made enquiries and then they discovered that the aforementioned proceedings had been taken in respect of their plots. They then filed the present writ petition. 4. The acquisition proceedings have been challenged on the following grounds : (i) That the notice under Section 28 and the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam are invalid, as they fail to give the necessary details namely the total area to be included in the scheme, plot numbers to be acquired and the details of the actual scheme, and that the description of the locality was given as Mathura Khas though there was no village by the name of Mathura Khas and the petitioners plots were situate in village Mathura Bangar. (ii) that the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam has been made for different scheme, other than one notified under Section 28 of the Act firstly, for the reason that Section 28 notice was in respect of much larger area than the area of land as envisaged in the scheme sanctioned under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam and the mention of the words special scheme in notification under Section 32 (1) necessarily leads to the-inference that scheme sanctioned was different from one notified under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam. (iii) that in the absence of any approval having been given by the State Government, the scheme framed under the Adhiniyam could not be allowed to continue in view of Section 59 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam was enacted in order to provide for the establishment of a housing and development Board in Uttar Pradesh. Under Section 3 of this Adhiniyam, the State Government had to establish a Board to be called Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, a body consisting of an Adhyakash and certain members. One of the functions of the Board, as provided under this Adhiniyam,. is to frame and execute housing and improvement schemes and other projects. Section 18 enumerates various types of housing and improvement schemes which include house accommodation scheme and Land Development Scheme. One of the functions of the Board, as provided under this Adhiniyam,. is to frame and execute housing and improvement schemes and other projects. Section 18 enumerates various types of housing and improvement schemes which include house accommodation scheme and Land Development Scheme. Section 28 enjoins upon the Board, when any housing and improvement scheme has been framed, to prepare a notice specifying certain particulars of the scheme and the details of the land proposed to be acquired. It has to invite objections to the scheme. Notice of the proposed acquisition is required to be given under Section 29. The objections are filed under Section 30. After considering the objections, if any, the Board may either abandon the scheme or submit it to the State Government for sanction. Thereupon the State Government may sanction with or without modification or refuse to sanction, or return the scheme for consideration. The scheme, if sanctioned by the State Government had to be notified under Section 32 (1). Sub-section (2) of Sec. 32 lays down that the notification under subsection (1) of Section 32 in respect of any scheme shall be conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. 5. Section 55 of the Adhiniyam provides that any land or interest therein may be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, and as modified by the-schedule to the Act. Clause 2 (i), inter alia, provides that notice under Section 28 shall be substituted for, and have in relation to any land proposed to be acquired under the scheme, the same effect as a notification under sub-section (10) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Again sub-clause (20) of this clause inter alia, provides that the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam in the case of land acquired under a housing or improvement scheme under the Adhiniyam, shall be substituted for, and, have the same effect as the declaration by the State Government under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Notice under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam requires specification of the bounderies of the area comprised in the scheme and the date, time and place at which a map of the area, particulars of the scheme and details of the land proposed to be acquired, may be seen. 6. Notice under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam requires specification of the bounderies of the area comprised in the scheme and the date, time and place at which a map of the area, particulars of the scheme and details of the land proposed to be acquired, may be seen. On a perusal of the notice under Section 28, we find that these specifications were contained in the notice. The bounderies of the area comprising the scheme have been clearly given with plot numbers and with all its details. It has also been clearly mentioned that a map of the area, particulars of the scheme and details of the land proposed to be acquired could be seen at the head office of parishad at 104, M. G. Marg, Lucknow as also at its branch office at 8, Master Plan Kandhari, Agra between office hours on any working day. The notice under Section 28, as also the notification under Section 32(1) are clearly valid under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. 7. From the provisions of the Adhiniyam, as discussed above, it is clear that the Adhiniyam is self contained with all the necessary provisions and whenever it was considered necessary to amend any earlier Act, it has been so done. We have seen that Section 55 mentions the amendments to which Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be subject in so far as it applies to the acquisition of land for the purposes of the Adhiniyam. As noted above, notice under Section 28 and notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam have the effect of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, respectively. Hence no notification is required to be issued either under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of this fiction. Notices under Section 28 and the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam need not be strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. They are not required in law' to comply with the requirement of Sections 4 and 6. If they are valid under the provisions of the Adhiniyam then they exclude the necessity of issuing notice under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. They are not required in law' to comply with the requirement of Sections 4 and 6. If they are valid under the provisions of the Adhiniyam then they exclude the necessity of issuing notice under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in Riaz Uddin v. State ( AIR 1973 All 240 ). 8. Even assuming that compliance of the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was necessary, then too, we are of the opinion that the requirements of these provisions also stood satisfied in the instant case. Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act requires specification of the locality in which the land is needed. The Supreme Court in Narendra Jit Singh v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1971 SC 306 ) held that Section 4 (1) only enjoins upon the Government to specify the locality in which the land is needed. We find that District, Pargana, Mauza and boundaries of the area comprised within the scheme were clearly given. As such, it is not possible to take the view that the locality was not specified or the land in respect of which a declaration was made was not identified. Further, full details of the scheme and the site plan etc., were available for inspection at the office of the parishad at Lucknow and also at its branch office at Agra. We further find that the petitioners, filed objections to the schemes, and, their objections were considered, and, they were present before Niyojan Samiti at the time of the hearing of their objections. They had full knowledge of the proceedings for acquisition in respect of their land. Even assuming that there (was) any failure to identify the locality or the land sought to be acquired, the petitioners were not prejudiced. It is not their case that they could not effectively exercise their right to file objections which, in fact, they did. In this view of the matter also we are of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the proceedings on the aforesaid ground. 9. The petitioners have asserted that their land was situate in village Mathura Bangar while the description of the locality given was Mathura Khaz. In this view of the matter also we are of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the proceedings on the aforesaid ground. 9. The petitioners have asserted that their land was situate in village Mathura Bangar while the description of the locality given was Mathura Khaz. They have further asserted that there was no village by the name of Mathura Khas. As noted earlier, boundaries of the land in the scheme Were clearly mentioned with full details, and notice under Section 29 also gave all the details. Apparently Mathura town appears to have been described as Mathura Khas. Counsel for the respondents stated before us that the town of Mathura has been recorded according to its non-alluvial and alluvial portions as Mathura Bangar and Mathura Khada areas, and, that there is no separate village known as Mathura Bangar or Mathura Khadar. It is thus clear that while the disputed plots being situate in the area of Mathura proper, they were also described under the heading Mathura Bangar. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners is in Mathura proper. We are, therefore, of the view that there was no mis-description, and, the description of the locality given as Mathura Khas could not lead the petitioners to have any wrong impression that their lands were not subject-matter of the proceedings for acquisition, when they appeared before the authority concerned and filed objections. 10. The first ground of challenge to the proceedings for acquisition therefore fails. 11. We thus come to the next ground of attack, namely, the petitioners case that the scheme as sanctioned and notified under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam was a scheme different from the scheme as mentioned in the notice under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam. 12. We are unable to accept the contention that merely because it was ultimately decided to acquire a lesser area of land, after hearing the objections, it must mean that the scheme as such was changed or that a different or a new' scheme came into being. It has been averred in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents that initially 290 acres of land was proposed to be acquired at the stage of Section 28 notice but ultimately it was decided to acquire 64 acres of land for the same scheme. It has been averred in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents that initially 290 acres of land was proposed to be acquired at the stage of Section 28 notice but ultimately it was decided to acquire 64 acres of land for the same scheme. It has been clearly averred that the scheme as approved by the Government under Sec. 31 of the Adhiniyam was the same, which was notified under Section 26, and, only area of land had been reduced according to the requirement of the scheme. 13. Then, the mention of the words Special Yojna No. 1 Mathura in the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam also cannot, in our view lead to the inference that the scheme as approved under Section 3f and notified under Section 32 (1) was different, or, was a new scheme. It has been averred in the counter-affidavit that the scheme as notified was covered under the provisions of Section 59 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and as such it was treated as a special scheme by the State Government for sanction under the provisions of this Act. The mention of word special in the aforesaid description of the scheme in question clearly, therefore, was in view' of the fact that the scheme was treated as special scheme by the State Government. The second ground also, therefore, is devoid of any merit. 14. Coming to the last ground, we find that in the counter-affidavit a clear averment has been made that the State Government had accorded necessary sanction under Section 59 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 as amended. This fact also finds mention in the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam. Section 59(1) (a) of Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 so far as it is relevant reads thus: "The operations of - ............................ This fact also finds mention in the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam. Section 59(1) (a) of Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 so far as it is relevant reads thus: "The operations of - ............................ the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (except in relation to those housing or improvement schemes which have either been notified under Section 32 of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 before the declaration of the area comprised therein as development area or which having been notified under Section 28 of the said Adhiniyam before the said declaration are thereafter approved by the State Government for continuance under the said Adhiniyam or which are initiated after such declaration with the approval of the State Government, hereinafter in the section referred to as Special Avas Parishad Schemes) shall in respect of a development area remain suspended..................." This bracketted portion alone was substituted and deemed always to have been substituted by Sec. 6 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 47 of 1976). This amending Act came into force from 22nd Nov., 1976. In the instant case, the scheme was notified under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, in Oct., 1973. It has been averred by the petitioners in their rejoinder-affidavit that by notification) dated 25th of March, 1977 in exercise of power under Section 3 of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 the area where the land is situate, was declared as development area. Clearly, therefore, the scheme in question having been notified under Section 28 before the declaration of development area, it could continue by virtue of Section 59 of this Act, if the State Government accorded its approval for continuance under the Adhiniyam. As already found, the State Government on 10th of Sep., 1977 accorded its approval to the scheme as a Special Avas Parishad Scheme. We, therefore, find no illegality in the continuation of the scheme; after coming into force of the U. P. Planning and Development Act, 1973. 15. This ground of challenge to the proceedings for acquisition, thus, also fails. 16. For reasons given above, we find no force in this petition. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Under the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. The stay order is vacated.