2011 (3) Supreme 473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Banda Development Authority, Banda — Appellant
versus
Moti Lal Agarwal and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3604 of 2011
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.30293 of 2010)
Decided on : 26-4-2011
AIR 1964 SC 1006; (1974) 2 SCC 501; (1996) 6 SCC 445; (1980) 2 SCC 83; (1996) 11 SCC 501; (2002) 7 SCC 712; (2006) 7 SCC 508; (1995) 4 SCC 229; (2010) 4 SCC 532 – Relied upon
(2007) 9 SCC 304; (2009) 10 SCC 115 – Distinguished
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 6(1) r/w Order XXI, rules 35,36,95 and 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Even the delivery of so called “symbolical” possession is delivery of “actual” possession of the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor – Retention of possession by land holder even after completion of acquisition proceedings is illegal. (Paras 28 to 30 and 34)
(1976) 1 SCC 700; (1996) 4 SCC 212; (2005) 12 SCC 489; (2009) 8 SCC 339; (2009) 10 SCC 501; (2010) 13 SCC 158; 2011(2) SCALE 692 – Relied upon
(1996) 1 SCC 434 – Distinguished
(2009) 8 SCC 339; (2008) 2 AWC 1832; (1999) 1 AWC 764 – Referred
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Section 11-A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17. (Para 36)
(1993) 4 SCC 369; (1995) 6 SCC 31; (1996) 3 SCC 1; (1993) 4 SCC 375; (1996) 6 SCC 424; (2005) 6 SCC 493 – Relied upon
Facts of case:
Effect of non-passing of award within stipulated time in a land acquisition proceeding is the issue in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Action of the concerned State authorities to go to the spot and prepare panchnama showing delivery of possession was sufficient for recording a finding that actual possession of the entire acquired land had been taken and handed over to the BDA.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was justified in entertaining and allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1-Moti Lal Agarwal in 2008 for nullifying the acquisition of his land by the State Government vide notification dated 8.9.1998 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) which was followed by declaration dated 7.9.1999 issued under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) on the ground of non passing of award within the time prescribed under Section 11A.
3. By the notifications referred in the preceding paragraph, the State Government acquired 103 bighas land situated in Ladakapurwa and Bhawanipur villages, Pargana and District Banda for Tulsi Nagar Residential Scheme of the Banda Development Authority (for short, “the BDA”). Both the notifications were published in the manner prescribed under Sections 4(1) and 6(2) respectively.
4. On 5.6.2000, the Secretary of the BDA deposited Rs.63,47,855.07 towards 80% of the compensation payable in lieu of the acquisition of 103 bighas land. This was in compliance of the mandate of Section 17(3A). The concerned authorities of the State delivered possession of the acquired land to the BDA on 30.6.2001. The officers of the Revenue Department visited the site on 4.9.2001 and prepared the Field Book, copy of which has been produced before this Court along with affidavit dated 19.1.2011 of Shri Biri Singh, Executive Engineer, BDA. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 14.6.2002 for the acquired land including plot No.795 of which 5 bighas 5 biswas was purchased by respondent No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 4.10.1982.
5. In the meanwhile, the BDA prepared lay out for the acquired land which was sanctioned by its Board on 8.5.2002. Thereafter, the land was developed in a phased manner and plots were carved out for economically weaker sections and LIG, MIG and HIG categories. The BDA also constructed flats for economically weaker sections and those belonging to lower income group. The plots and flats were allotted to the eligible persons who had applied in response to different advertisements issued by the BDA between 2.11.2002 and 26.4.2006.
6. After more than three years of publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1), respondent No.1 filed suit being O.S. No.52 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda, and prayed that the defendants be directed to start the acquisition proceedings afresh and disburse compensation after sub-dividing and numbering plot No.795 in accordance with paragraph 63 of the Land Record Manual. The suit was dismissed on 1.9.2007 in view of the bar contained in the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the trial Court in First Appeal No.364 of 2007 but withdrew the same by stating that the writ petition filed by him was pending.
7. In the writ petition filed by him on 24.3.2008, respondent No.1 challenged notifications dated 8.9.1998 and 7.9.1999 mainly on the ground that the acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed because the award was not passed within two years from the date of last publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1). Respondent No.1 pleaded that though plot No.795 had not been sub-divided and demarcated and physical possession thereof was not taken, the concerned authorities prepared Kabja Hastantaran Praman Patra dated 30.6.2001 and thereby took paper possession of his land. He also claimed that plot No. 795/3 owned by him had not been notified, but the concerned authorities colluded with Smt. Shashi Devi and other interested persons and reflected him as tenure holder of that plot.
8. The thrust of the affidavits filed by Shri Mam Chand, Executive Engineer and Shri Har Govind
Brij Pal Bhargava v. State of U.P.
Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman
State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai
Ajodhya Bhagat v. State of Bihar
Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat
Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P.
State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar
Government of A.P. v. Kollutla Obi Reddy
Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar
Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar
P.K. Kalburqi v. State of Karnataka
Sita Ram Bhandar Society v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi
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.