High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Sheikher Hotels And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 65687 of 2006  RD-AH 20640 (6 December 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65687 of 2006
MS Sheikher Hotels Gulmohar Enclave
and another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Petitioners.
State of U.P. and others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Respondents.
Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents no. 1 and 2 as well as the learned Counsel representing respondents no. 3 and 4.
The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to challenge notification dated 15.6.2006 issued under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 19.10.2006 under section 6 of the aforesaid Act ( Annexures no. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition ).
At the outset learned counsel appearing for Bulandshahr-Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr has raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioners as described in the memorandum of the petition. Without entering into this aspect, we permitted the learned counsel representing the petitioners to argue the matter on merits.
The main contention of the petitioners is that section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act has been dispensed with arbitrarily. According to him the main ground in the notification that there is urgency since the land in question is required for setting up Transport Nagar is not enough. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Union of India and others Vs. Praveen Gupta and others' AIR 1997 Supreme Court 170. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the reported judgment we found that their Lordships of the Apex Court repelled the arguments of the owner of the land and held that shifting of timber business from walled city to the outskirts of the city was for urgent purpose, and since it was to relieve the traffic congestion in the walled city it became the matter of urgency and exercise of the power under Section 17(4) cannot be said to be unwarranted.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of 'Union of India and others Vs. Mukesh Hans etc.' AIR 2004 SC 4307 and an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 25.8.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 72063 of 2005 ( Kashama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others). We find that these judgments do not render any help to the petitioners in any way and particularly in view of the fact that categorical pleadings on vital issues are absent in the writ petition. The argument has been that the government has acted arbitrarily in saying that Transport Nagar is urgently required. In this context reference is made to paragraph 12 of the writ petition. We find no co-relation between the arguments of the learned counsel and the pleadings contained in the said paragraph of the writ petition. Paragraph 12 of the writ petition refers to the language used in the notification. As discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned notifications in view of the Division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kashama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. ( supra . The petitioners should have categorically pleaded that the government had no material or information with it or that an inquiry was not done to find out as to whether Transport Nagar was urgently required. In the absence of such pleadings the above arguments cannot be allowed in the writ petition.
No other point was pressed before us.
We find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.