TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Market Yard of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kheragarh under a notification 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 not apply to the said acquisition proceedings, it simultaneously made an order under Section 17(4) of the Act directing that Section 5-A would not apply to the said proceedings and incorporated the said order also in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification was published in the Official Gazette dated January 9, 1980. This was followed by a notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd appellant No. 3 claimed to be the owner of plots Nos. 133 and 134. Appellant Mo. 1 pleaded that there was a house situated on plot No. 249 and that he had also installed a flour mill on it. They all pleaded that they had no knowledge 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 proceeding. They further pleaded that there was no urgency sufficient in law to sustain the order made under Section 17(4) of the Act as nothing had been done on the lands for nearly two years. Appellant No. 1 also pleaded that Section 17(4) of the Act would not be applicable because on a part of his land there was a house. They also applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al acts would have been performed duly as required by law. It is significant that a large number of persons who own the remaining plots have not challenged the acquisition proceedings. The only other petition in which these proceedings, are challenged re Civil Misc. Writ Petition 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 short while and it is difficult to. believe that the appellant who are residents of that place would not have known till July, 1982 that the impugned notification had been published in 1980. Any interference in this case filed after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, placed on a decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. [1980]1SCR1071 In that decision the main point made out was that the acquisition proceedings had been engineered mala fide by a State Minister. We do not have any such allegation in the present case. In the circumstances of this case we do not find that there is any ground to hold that the order made under Section 17(4) of the Act exempting the operation of Section 5-A of the Act is bad in law even though there appears to be some administrative delay in commencing the construction of the Market Yard. Some photographs of the land produced before us, however, show that the work of construction has already been commenced. 9. We do not, therefore, find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
