http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOTI LAL & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/11/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURKUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:              Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati              Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar O.P. Rana,  Sr. Adv.  Pradeep Misra,  T. Mahipal, Advs. with him for the appellant Janak Singh  Tomer,  Adv.  for  K.K.  Gupta,  Adv.  for  the Respondents.                      J U D G E M E N T      The following judgment of the Court was delivered. NANAVATI, J.      Leave granted.      Heard leaned counsel for the parties.      The only  ground on  which the  High Court  allowed the writ petition  filed  by  the  respondents  challenging  the attempt to  acquire their  lands in plot No. 2611 of village Kashai  was   that  the  said  plot  was  not  notified  for acquisition and,  therefore, it  was not  open to  the State Government to deprive the appellants of the said lands or to interfere with  their possession.  It  is  true  that  while issuing notification  under Section 4 on  2.6.1978 the State Government committed  a mistake  in stating  the name of the village in  which the  said plot  is situated.  In the  said notification it  was described  as a  plot of village Bankat whereas really  the said plot is situated in village Kashai. Realizing this  mistake the  State Government  had issued  a corrigendum dated  27.11.1978 which  was published  in  U.P. gazette on  16.12.1978 and  thereby  the  said  mistake  was corrected by  stating that  what was  sought to  be acquired under Section  4 notification was 0.91 acres of land of plot No. 2611 of village kashai. It was because of the negligence of the  State Government  that the said fact was not brought to the  notice of  the High  Court. However, in view of this corrigendum it  cannot be  disputed that  0.91 acres of land out of  the said  plot was  notified for  acquisition by the State Government.  The declaration  made under Section 6 was also required to be read accordingly. It was, therefore, not proper for  the High  Court to  declare that no part of plot No. 2611  of village Kashai was notified for acquisition and to grant  an injunction  restraining the  State from  taking

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

over possession  of the  respondents’ lands. On this limited ground we  allow this  appeal, set aside the order passed by the High  Court and  hold  that  the  State  Government  had notified 0.91  acres of  land of  plot No.  2611 of  village kashai for  acquisition offer  the benefit of the appellant- samiti. We,  however, make  it clear  that as the only point which was  considered by  the High  court ,  was whether the lands of he respondent were notified for acquisition or not, it will  be open to the respondent s to take any appropriate action on  any other  ground, if  it is available to them as respondents have  been dragged  to this Court because of the negligence of the State Government and the appellant-samiti, the  appellant   is  directed   to  pay  to  the  contesting respondents Rs.  5,000/- by  way of cost of this appeal even though they have succeeded in this appeal.