IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in not disturbing the findings of the Competent Authority that it was not feasible to release the lands of appellants from acquisition having regard to the facts of the case.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6 and 48(1)-Acquisition of land for the purpose of planned development of district Ghaziabad (now district Gautam Budh Nagar) through Noida-Appellants filing writ petitions -High Court dismissed-In appeal, Supreme Court directed in 1998(6) SCC 1 in paras 31 and 32 the appellants to file claims under Section 48(1) before competent authority for release of their lands-Competent authority after evidence and hearing rejected their claims-High Court affirmed under the parameters of Court s power of judicial review of executive action-Again appeal to Supreme Court-Whether approach of the High Court was right? (Yes)-Appeals dismissed.
       Held : As already stated above, the Competent Authority in compliance with the directions given by this Court in Om Prakash case, in the light of observations made therein having considered the evidence placed on record and after hearing the parties, recorded findings and held that it was not feasible to release the lands of the appellants from acquisition. From the impugned judgment of the High Court it is clear that the High Court kept in view the scope and judicial review in dealing with the impugned order dated 3-12-1999, passed by the Competent Authority. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and others v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and others [(1983) 4 SCC 392], this Court, while stating that by now, the parameters of the Court s power of judicial review of administrative or executive action or decision and the grounds on which the court can interfere with the same or well settled, proceeded to say further in para 11, thus :-
       "11. ....Indisputably, it is a settled position that if the action or decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters the Court would be justified in interfering with the same."
       In the same decision it is also stated that in examining the validity of an order in such matters the test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision making process and not the decision itself. From this decision it is also clear that when choices are open to the authority it is for that authority to decide upon the choice and not for the court to substitute its view. The High Court keeping in view the scope of judicial review in such matters considered the respective contentions raised before it. On finding that the Authority passed the impugned order dated 3-12-1999 on proper consideration of the evidence placed before it and after hearing the parties in the light of the directions given and observations made by this Court in the case of Om Prakash, did not consider it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. We do not find any good or valid reason so as to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order passed by the Authority. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter having regard to the facts of the case, in the light of law applicable to them and keeping in view the parameters stated by this Court in paras 31 and 32 of the judgment in Om Prakash case, the authority rejected the representations made by the appellants and the High Court affirmed the same and rightly so in our opinion. Under these circumstances, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of dismissal of appeals, contempt petitions also stand dismissed. (Paras 20 and 21)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-About 496 acres of land including that of the appellants were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ). Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued for the purpose of planned development of district Ghaziabad (now district Gautam Budh Nagar) through NOIDA on 5-1-1991 and 7-1-1992 respectively. The appellants challenged those notifications by filing writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed. They filed appeals by Special Leave to this Court challenging the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. This Court in Om Prakash & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1998) 6 SCC 1) disposed of those appeals giving certain directions. Although several contentions were raised before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings, finally this Court has made observations and gave certain directions in paras 31 and 32, which read as under:-

"31. Now remains the moot question as to what proper orders can be passed in the present proceedings in the light of our findings on the aforesaid points. We have already noted that the real and the only contention of the appellants for effectively challenging the acquisition proceedings is that because their lands are having abadi, they are covered by the existing State policy for not acquiring such lands under the Act. Whether these lands are having abadi or not, is a vexed question of fact which we have kept open for consideration of appropriate authorities instead of relegating the appellants to the remedy under Section 5-A of the Act. We deem it fit to relegate the appellants to the remedy by way of suitable representation before the appropriate State authorities under Section 48 of the Act. It reads as under :-

"48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.-(1) Except in the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.

(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together which all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land.

(3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this Section."

As laid down by sub-section (1) of Section 48, the Government is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. Learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that possession of these lands has already been taken. Our attention was invited to a possession receipt annexed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent 4, Secretary, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. It is stated in the counter that NOIDA has been put in possession of the acquired lands from 30-3-1992 and the lands under acquisition now form a part of Sectors 43 and 44 of NOIDA. The Secretary of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Shri Rama Shankar has also earlier filed counter-affidavit to that effect. In para 6 thereof, it is averred as under :-

"6. I further say and submit that the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 31-2-1992 passed an interim order to the effect that there would be status quo and/or that the petitioner would not be dispossessed from the land in dispute unless he has already been dispossessed. I say and submit that a day prior to the date on which the interim order was passed, the petitioner had already lost possession and the 4th respondent was put in actual physical possession of the land which is the subject matter of this petition."

Our attention was also invited to Possession Certificate at p.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 325

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court was right in not disturbing the findings of the Competent Authority that it was not feasible to release the lands of appellants from acquisition having regard to the facts of the case.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in not disturbing the findings of the Competent Authority that it was not feasible to release the lands of appellants from acquisition having regard to the facts of the case.