SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(SC) 470

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
Narendra Bahadur Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 297 of 1976,
dated 26-11-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. M. K. Garg, K.B. Rohatgi, V. K. Jain & M. M. Kashyap, Advocates with him), for Appellants; Mr. O. P. Rana Advocate (for Nos. 1-4) and Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. Pramod Swarup & R. S. Verma, Advocates with him), (for No. 5) for Respondents.

Advocates:
K.B.ROHTAGI, M.K.Garg, M.M.KASHYAP, O.P.RANA, PRAMOD SVARUP, R.S.VERMA, S.T.DESAI, V.K.Jain, V.M.TARKUNDE

Headnote:

U. P. Land Acquisition Act, 1948 - Section 7 (1) – Acquisition of land – Quash of order - Possession of land - Whether those persons are settled in Uttar Pradesh or not is essentially one of fact - Sufferers Co-operative Housing Society Respondent applied to the U. P. Government for acquiring four acres of land for the purpose of erecting houses, shops and workshops for the rehabilitation of the refugees who were members of that society - At instance of the State Government society deposited a sum towards the cost of the land to be acquired - Society entered into an agreement with State Government under Section 6 of the Act - State Government thereafter published on April impugned notification - Under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to declare that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in Schedule is needed and is suitable for the erection of houses shops and workshops for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and/or for provision of amenities directly connected therewith - All persons interested in the land in question are therefore required to appear personally or by duly authorized agent before Compensation Officer on twenty seventh day of April with necessary documentary or other evidence for the determination of the amount of compensation under Section 11 of the Act - Collector is directed to take possession of the aforesaid land fourteen days after the publication of this notice in the official gazette - Upon publication of this notice aforesaid land shall be deemed to have been acquired permanently and shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances from beginning of day on which the notice is so published – Held, Courts should be averse to strike down a notification for acquisition of land on fanciful grounds based on hyper technicality - What is needed is substantial compliance with law - Impugned notification in court opinion clearly satisfies that requirement - Court may deal with the contention advanced on behalf of appellants that the notification in question is vague - It is pointed out that the total area of the land comprised in field numbers mentioned in the notification while the actual area which is sought to be acquired is one acre - Learned counsel accordingly urges that it is not possible to find out the particular portions of those fields which are sought to be acquired - As such notification is stated to be vague and thus not in conformity with law - Our attention has also been invited to the report dated June who was deputed to deliver possession of acquired land to the society - In said report stated that he found it difficult to find out as to which part of the fields mentioned in the notification were acquired - In this respect court find that the report of itself indicated that when he went to the spot to deliver possession of the acquired land, he did not take with him the correct plan of the said land - Impugned notification makes an express reference to the site-plan - An affidavit has been filed on behalf of society and that affidavit makes it plain that the area of the land which has been acquired comes to exactly one acre - There appears to be no cogent ground to interfere with the finding of Division Bench of the High Court that the impugned notification has not been shown to be vague - Court therefore find no infirmity in the impugned notification - Appeal fails and is dismissed but in circumstances with no order as to costs - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

KHANNA, J.:- This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, reversing on appeal the decision of learned single Judge, whereby notification dated April 23, 1966 issued by the State Government under Section 7 (1) of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been quashed. As a result of the decision of the Division Bench the writ petition filed by the appellants to quash that notification stood dismissed.

2. The Sufferers Co-operative Housing Society, Janupur, Respondent, applied to the U. P. Government in 1955 for acquiring four acres of land for the purpose of erecting houses, shops and workshops for the rehabilitation of the refugees who were members of that society. At the instance of the State Government, the society deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards the cost of the land to be acquired. In 1964, the society entered into an agreement with the State Government under Section 6 of the Act. The State Government thereafter published on April 23, 1966, the impugned notification and the same reads as under:

"Under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act No. XXVI of 1948, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to declare that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the Schedule is needed and is suitable for the erection of houses, shops and workshops for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and/or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith.

All the persons interested in the land in question are, therefore, required to appear personally or by duly authorised agent before the Compensation Officer of the Distt. at Jaunpur on the twenty seventh day of April 1966, with necessary documentary or other evidence for the determination of the amount of compensation under Section 11 of the Act.

The Collector of Janupur is directed to take possession of the aforesaid land fourteen days after the publication of this notice in the official gazette.

Upon the publication of this notice, the aforesaid land shall be deemed to have been acquired permanently and shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published.

SCHEDULE

Distt. Pargana Mauza Municipality Cantonment, Town area or Notified Area Plot No. Area

Mohalla Diwan Shah Kabir alias Tartala 154

Pargana Haveli, Tahsil 152/1 1.00

Jaunpur Municipal Area 152/2

Jaunpur 149

153

2 shops Nos. 6 and 7

For what purpose required: for rehabilitation of displaced persons.

Note: A copy of the site plan may be inspected at the office of the Collector, Jaunpur."

Subsequent to that notification, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation for the land and shops to be acquired at a little over rupees forty one thousand. The balance of the amount to be paid as compensation was thereafter deposited by the society.

3. On April 10, 1970 the appellants, claiming to be the owners of a part of the land sought to be acquired filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Allahabad High Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned notification. The notification was assailed on the following three grounds:

(1) The notification did not properly specify the lands sought to be acquired:

(2) The notification was ultra vires the Act inasmuch as it sought to acquire lands for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons and not for the rehabilitation of refugees; and

(3) The notification was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Act.

4. The learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, did not go into the first ground. He, however, accepted the second and third grounds and in the result quashed the notification. On the second ground, the learned Judge referred to the definition in section 2 (7) of the Act, according to which refugee means any person who was a resident in any p








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top