Shri Uday Singh and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—When this case was reserved for judgment, we pass the following order :-

In this case nobody has been appearing on behalf of the petitioner for number of dates. Affidavit, in terms of order dated 05-05-05 and subsequent orders of the court, have been filed by respondent No.2.

this case nobody has been appearing on behalf of the petitioner for number of dates. Affidavit, in terms of order dated 05-05-05 and subsequent orders of the court, have been filed by respondent No.2.

Let this case be listed for directions in that regard only along with other connected cases on 21-04-06.

As nobody is appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the connected matters arising from the same Notification and acquisition of land of revenue estate of the same village have already been reserved for orders, we reserve this case also for orders. We have heard counsel for the respondent in absence of counsel for the petitioner and reserved the matter for orders.

this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that Notification dated 18th December, 1987 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration dated 14th January, 1988 in furtherance thereto be set aside including the notification issued u/s 17 of the Act dispensing with the compliance of provisions of Section 5A of the Act.

petitioners are co-bhumidars and claim to be in possession of land measuring 6 Bighas and 10 bids was in Khasra No.541(6-10) situated in the revenue estate of Village Bindapur. The petitioners have taken up various grounds in support of their contentions.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had informed the Court that this petition is identical to the case of Nandu v. Union of India WP(C) No. 933/88, which has already been heard at great length by the Court and judgment has been reserved. He further informed the Court that the cases where the Court has reserved the judgment relates to the same Notification issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Act and also the land is located in the revenue estate of the same village.

m the record this appears to be factually correct position of the case. Thus, for the reasons stated by us in the judgment of Nandu (supra) of the same date, this writ petition is also allowed limited to that extent and with the directions given in that case.

WP (C) No. 1161/88 is accordingly disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.