2008(4) Supreme 543
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
A.K. Mathur and Altamas Kabir, J.
M/s. Sheikhar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2008
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.3193 of 2007]
Decided on : 12-05-2008
(2004) 8 SCC 14; (1993) 2 SCC 84; (1997) 9 SCC 78 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. Respondent No.3- Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority, Bhuandshahr (the Development Authority) in its 25th Board meeting held on 3.5.2002 decided to establish at the present site, “Transport Nagar” abutting to the National Highway No.91.
2. Under the Regional plan of the National Capital Regional Planning Board National Highway No.91 is proposed to be made a four lane road.
3. Some of the plots under acquisition were purchased by the appellants after passing of the master plan and resolution of the Board.
4. As none of the plots were recorded either in the name of M/s.Sheikhar Hotels or Shri Chandrasekhar Sharma, the appellants herein, therefore, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents before the High Court that the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the writ petitioner-appellants, who not being the owners of the plot, cannot file the objection under Section 5-A of the Act.
5. Despite spending heavy amount, the respondents were not making any progress due to the litigation and incurring heavy interest on the one hand and not able to develop the Capital Region as planned resulting in traffic congestions.
6. The High Court dispensed with the objections invoking Section 17(4) r/w Section 5-A.
Findings of the Court :
No interference required.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court affirmed the notification dated 15.6.2006 issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the notification dated 19.10.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. A preliminary objection was raised before the High Court on behalf of the respondent- Bulandshahr-Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr that the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the appellants and secondly it was contended that the writ petition was bereft of basic pleadings with regard to the challenge of dispensing with Section 5-A of the Act.
3. The first question which was agitated before the High Court was that dispensing with requirement of Section 5-A of the Act was arbitrary. The Division Bench of the High Court after referring to couple of decisions of this Court took the view that the urgency shown for invoking Section 5-A was justified as it was necessary to remove the traffic congestion. It was also found that there was no co-relation between the argument and the pleadings contained in the writ petition. The High Court found that there was no infirmity in the impugned notifications. Hence this appeal on grant of special leave.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before we address to the main issue it will be relevant to mention a few facts. Respondent No.3- Bulandshahr Khurja Development Authority, Bhuandshahr (hereinafter to be referred to as the Development Authority) in its 25th Board meeting held on 3.5.2002 decided to establish at the present site, “Transport Nagar” abutting to the National Highway No.91. Under the regional plan of the National Capital Regional Planning Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) National Highway No.91 is proposed to be made a four lane road. Out of the plots described in the paper-book, plot Nos. 424, 424-M, 430, 443, 449M and 492 are not under acquisition under notification dated 10.7.2006. Plot No.428-M was purchased by M/s. Allied Construction under sale deed dated 5.12.2003, plot No.429 was purchased by Krishan Kumar son of Shankar Lal vide sale deed dated 18.9.2003, plot No.442 was purchased by Smt. Asha under sale deed dated 18.9.2003. Plot No.430 was purchased by Vipul Kaushik and Vinay Kaushik both minors. Plot No.449 was purchased by Chandrasekhar, Naresh Kumar and Kishan Kumar under sale deed dated 18.9.2002 and plot No.450 was purchased by the same vendees under two sale deeds dated 18.9.2003 and 12.2.2004. Same was the case with regard to Plot No.478. It was contended that all these plots were purchased after the resolution was passed by the Board to set up the Transport Nagar. None of the plots were recorded either in the name of M/s.Sheikhar Hotels or Shri Chandrasekhar Sharma, the appellants herein. Therefore, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents before the High Court that the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the writ petitioner-appellants, who not being the owners of the plot, cannot file the objection under Section 5-A of the Act. It was also pointed out that the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ( hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Development Act’) had come into force on 12.6.1973 with the object of development of certain areas. A Master Plan was prepared under the Development Act and after the same was published and objections and suggestions were invited. Thereafter, the Master Plan was finalized. In the said Master Plan this area was ear-marked for the Transport Nagar. At present the State Road Transport Bus Terminal is situated in the thickly populated area and there is really traffic congestion. The Master Plan contemplated acquisition of total area of 501.58 hectares of land for the integrated plan fo
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.