U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Pushpa Lata Awasthi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(SC) 327

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW (U.P.)
Versus PUSHPA LATA AWASTHI(SMT)
Civil Appeal No. 3940 of 1995{From the Judgment and Order dated 3-10-1985 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 15781 of 1983}
Decided on 6-3-1995
Advocates appeared:
O.P. Rana, Senior Advocate (P.N. Gupta, Advocate, with him) for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3940 of 1995.
Shrish Kumar Misra, A.K. Goel, Ms Sheela Goel and E.C. Agarwala, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Advocates:
A.K.GOHIL, E.C.AGARWAL, O.P.RANA, P.N.Gupta, SHILA GOEL, SHRISH MISHRA

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 - Section 29 - Property - Right On Property - Respondents had purchased property they cannot have any higher right than what owner had - Admittedly, owner had not challenged notification - Awasthi was subsequent purchaser from Chote Lal - Notice was given to Chote Lal and Awasthi had not challenged notification - Therefore, it is not open to respondents to challenge notification after they had purchased property– Held, Notice was served on respondent, nobody appears for him - Leave granted - In Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. this Court, one of us - K. Ramaswamy, J., elaborately considered and held that certain provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894, were incorporated in State Act - Therefore, it is not a case of reference - In consequence, Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, 68 of 1984 was inapplicable - Unless State Legislature incorporates amendment, these cannot be applied to proceedings initiated under State Act - Notification acquiring land, therefore, does not get lapsed - Court find that High Court was not justified in allowing writ petition and quashing notification – Appeal Allowed.

ORDER

1. In view of the fact that the respondents had purchased the property on 21-5-1983, they cannot have any higher right than what the owner had. Admittedly, the owner had not challenged the notification. Awasthi was thesubsequent purchaser from Chote Lal. Notice was given to Chote Lal and Awasthi had not challenged the notification. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the notification after they had purchased the property in question. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in allowing the Writ Petition No. 15781 of 1983. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

CAs Nos. 3942 and 3943 of 1995 [Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 2886 of 1986 and 2899 of 1986]

2. Leave granted.

3. In view of the order in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1143 of 1986, these appeals are allowed. No costs.

CAs No. 3941 of 1995 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2885 of 1986]

4. Though notice was served on the respondent, nobody appears for him. Leave granted. In Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. this Court, one of us - K. Ramaswamy, J., elaborately considered and held that certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894, were incorporated in the State Act. Therefore, it is not a case of reference. In consequence, the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, 68 of 1984 was inapplicable. Unless the State Legislature incorporates the amendment, these cannot be applied to the proceedings initiated under the State Act. The notification acquiring the land, therefore, does not get lapsed.

5. The writ petition was also allowed by the High Court on the ground that notice under Section 29 was not served on the respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit thus:

"It is submitted that the notice under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam was issued and served to the petitioner and in response to the notice under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam the petitioner admittedly filed the objection which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 4 with the writ petition itself."

6. In view of this specific averment, we find that the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the notification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

For Citation: 1995(3) SCC 573

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1995 Supreme(SC) 327

Cases Referred (1)