K.J. Shetty, C.J.

1. Petitioners are the owners of a land measuring about 26 Bighas. It is situated in village Baraut Patti Baru, Pirgana Baraut, in district Meerut. This land alongwith other lands measuring about 60 more Bighas is being acquired for construction of a market yard of Kriuhi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Baraut.

2. On July 29, 1986, a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (called shortly "The Act") was issued. The notification states that the Governor was satisfied that in view of the present urgency it was necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, and consequently the Governor was pleased to direct under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 that the provision of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply to the proposed acquisition. On October 24, 1986 the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The Petitioners have challenged the validity of the acquisition in particular, the legality of dispensing with the requirements of the provision of Section 5A of the Act.

3. The case of the Petitioners is that there is absolutely no urgency for acquisition by eliminating the enquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act. They have inter-alia alleged.

4. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has been contemplating to acquire this land ever since 982. In 1984, it had taken proceedings to acquire the said land, but the notification issued thereon was withdrawn in view of the challenge made by these Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3994 of 1985. Petitioners land has been converted into euclyptus grove where there are about 76,000 euclyptus plants. Since the matter has been under consideration, at any rate from 1984, the Government ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Section 5A of the Act, by giving an opportunity to the Petitioners to put forward their objections against the proposed acquisition.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, the averments of the Petitioners regarding the number of euclyptus plants have been denied. In regard to the urgent need to acquire the land, it has been stated:

In the town of Baraut the existing Mandi is located in such a congested place that there is no place for parking, storing goods etc. On account of truck traffic it is hazardous to the public. The purchasers, producers, sellers and traders are feeling unsurmounting difficulty in bringing the goods in the market yard. Roads are uneven. There is lot of mud. During winy season it is practically impossible to have access to the existing market yard and it is an urgent scheme. World Bank has also given loan to the State of U.P. for construction of the market yard and it is most useful and welfare scheme to ameliorate the difficulties experienced by the producers who bring their produce in the market yard.

In para 17 of the counter affidavit it has been further stated:

The land in dispute is most suitable for construction of the market yard. It was selected by the Committee consisting of very senior officers as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The Government was fully satisfied about the urgency as the existing market yard is inconvenient to transact business and acquisition is under the planned development scheme. Mandi Samiti has got funds to raise market yard at the earliest and further on account of delay there is price spiral in respect of the land as well as building material. Further, there is acute paucity of godown. Existing market is in congested place and there is no parking place. Even the roads are in rotten condition and during rainy season there is accumulation of filth and it becomes impossible to have access to the existing market yard where business regarding grains, Gur, Khandsari etc. is transacted.

It was then stated:

The congestion is so acute that it is creating difficulties hence needs to shift the trade from the densely populated area to an open place where the business of sale and purchase can be carried on comfortably. In the existing market there are no places for sitting of the producers, parking of the vehicles and even ordinary facilities regarding water, sanitation etc. are not proper. Therefore, it causes immense inconvenience to the people dealing in sale and purchase as well as to the consumers. Therefore, there was ample justification for the Government to dispense with the proceedings under Section 5A of the Act.

6. It may be noted that the Petitioners are the only persons aggrieved by the acquisition. They are the owners of 26 Bighas. The total extent of land sought to be acquired for the market yard is 88 Bighas. The owners of other lands have no grievance. The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has already deposited Rs. 24,65,418.27 with the Acquisition Officer, towards the compensations payable to the owners. The persons other than the Petitioner might have withdrawn the two-thirds of their compensation.

7. It is also necessary to state that this is not a case where Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has no means to construct the market yard and godowns. Mandi Samiti has got Rs. 2.27 crores at its disposal and it is Special Class Mandi. It is a very big Gur and Khandsari Mandi. The World Bank has also provided finance to the State Government for the benefits of construction of market yards.

8. The question herein is whether the State was justified in dispensing the requirements of enquiry contemplated under Section 5A. It could be taken judicial notice of, that in regard to agricultural produce there were no proper market facilities. There were innumerable charges, levies and exactions which the agriculturists were required to pay without having any say in the proper utilization of the amount paid by them. The Government of India and the various committees and commissions appointed to study the condition of agricultural markets in the country had stressed the need to provide proper market yards for the sale and purchase of agricultural produce. The Planning Commission also stressed long ago in this regard. The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 has been enacted to provide for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets therefore, in Uttar Pradesh. The proposed construction of market and market yard by the Mandi Samiti is, therefore, a step forward to ameliorate the conditions of produces with due representation to them in the Mandi Samities for the fair settlement of disputes relating to therin transactions. It is a long felt need which is said to have been included in the Planned Development Scheme.

9. As stated in Para 17 of the counter affidavit, the land in dispute has been found to be most suitable for construction of the market yard and it was selected by the Committee consisting of very senior officers of the Government. There is also a report by the Collector regarding the urgency in acquiring the land in question. The Government was informed about the shortage of godowns and insufficiency of the existing market yards which are almost in a shabby state. It is stated and indeed not disputed, before us that the existing market yard was constructed about a century ago and it has outlived its utility and unable to cope with the growing need of the agriculturists.

10. In para 23 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that in the peak hours there is not even place to stand what to say of parking of the vehicles etc. It is impossible to have access to the market yard on account of arrival of the goods and rush of the people and it has rather rendered the task impossible for the Mandi Samiti to supervise the sale and purchase. There are no platforms. There are no places for grading and cleaning the produce and get the produce sold through auction.

11. Looking at these conditions it cannot be said that there is no urgency in the matter of acquiring the land in question. It is an acknowledged fact that the farmers need protection against the exploiters. They need remunerative price for their produce. They should be provided with all facilities for sale of their produce. The proper market yard, is, therefore, indispensable for them. We should not look leisurely at everything. The need of the farmers requires everybodys concern and attention. Their need is no less urgent than housing accommodation. The Supreme Court in a recent decision pertaining to the case of Meerut Development Authority--State of U.P. v. Meerut Development Authority, Meerut : AIR 1986 SC 2025 [LQ/SC/1986/316] has observed that acquisition proceedings for the housing scheme could be taken by dispensing with the compliance of Section 5A of the Act. It was observed at page 2028:

The provision of housing accommodation in these days has become a matter of national urgency. We may take judicial notice of this fact. Now it is difficult to hold that in the case of proceedings relating to acquisition of land for providing house sites it is unnecessary to invoke Section 17(1) of the Act and to dispense with the compliance of Section 5A of the Act.

12. These observations are equally applicable to acquisition for construction of market yards which are primarily for the benefit of agriculturists. They are the back bone of this country. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the lands have been acquired with malafide intention. Their only case is that they have planted euclyptus, but the law provides for adequate compensation even for that.

13. In this result, we see no sustainable ground for admitting the petition. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. The stay order earlier granted by this Court stands vacated.