IMPORTANT POINTS
Writ petitions filed belatedly are liable to be dismissed. However, in its discretion, the High Court may entertain even a belated petition.
Change of purpose of acquisition is permissible. Does not give rise to fresh cause of action.
Even if invoking section 17 in acquisition proceedings is held illegal, if the land owners file writ petitions belatedly and third party rights are created in the meantime, High Court has to balance equities for doing substantial justice.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Petitioners even after receiving compensation filing writ petition challenging the acquisition after much delay after a favourable judgment in similar cases – Not permissible – High Court righty dismissing the petitions for delays and laches. (Para 24)
       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 5A, 6, 17, and 18 r/w Article 226, Constitution of India – Land acquired for industrial development invoking section 17 dispensing with section 5A – Possession taken – Compensation paid – land owners not aggrieved – Land not utilized for stated purpose of industrial development – Instead allotted to builders for developing residential accommodations – Land owners aggrieved by change of purpose – Approaching High Court – Change of purpose permissible – Does not give rise to fresh cause of action – Petitions might not be maintainable stricto sensu on ground of delay and laches – However, discretion exercised by High Court under Article 226 not disturbed. (Para 35, 36, 37, 38)
       (2010) 11 SCC 242; (2010) 10 SCC 282; AIR 1974 SC 2077; (1997) 1 SCC 15; (2007) 5 SCC 231 – Relied upon
       (1994) 1 SCC 1; (2007) 9 SCC 304; (2011) 10 SCC 608 – Referred
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A, 17 and 18 t/w Article 226, Constitution of India – Equity – Invoking section 17 dispensing with section 5A held illegal by the High Court – On the other hand owing to delay in challenging the same third party rights created in the acquired land – High Court rightly balancing equities and arriving at a more practical and workable solution – Direction for enhanced compensation and allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners – Upheld. (Para 40)
       (2010) 7 SCC 129; (1995) 2 SCC 677; (1995) 3 SCC 128; (2012) 3 SCC 727; AIR 1964 SC 72 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       Land situate in various villages of Noida and Greater Noida in Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired. Some other Notifications under same provisions of the Act in respect of lands of these villages was also acquired by earlier Notifications. The purpose stated in the notifications was 'Planned Industrial Development'.
       Urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act were invoked thereby dispensing with the right of objection otherwise given to the land holders under Section 5A of the Act. The total land which was acquired by these notification was 589.188 hectares.
       Some writ petitions were initially filed in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the said Notifications, with primary contention that invocation of emergency provision and taking away valuable right of the land holders under Section 5A of the Act was illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.
       Some of the writ petitions came up before the Division Bench of the said High Court. In one of them High Court upholding the very same Notifications, on arriving at the conclusion that invocation of Section 17 of the Act was justified, dismissed that writ petition.
       Another Division Bench of the same High Court holding that invocation of provisions of Section 17 of the Act was not justified quashed these Notifications.
       As a sequel, spate of writ petitions came to be filed challenging the lands acquired not only by the notification dated 12-03-2008 but even by earlier notifications as well. When these petitions came up before another Division Bench it noticed the aforesaid two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches. Therefore the matters were placed before the Full Bench.
       By that time 471 writ petitions had accumulated. All these writ petitions were taken up analogously by the Full Bench and disposed of. The Full Bench of the High Court accepted the plea of the land holders that invocation of emergency clause contained in Section 17 of the Act was impermissible and unwarranted. At the same time, the High Court also noticed that in respect of land of many villages, possession had already been taken and substantial development work carried out. Even compensation was paid in such cases. The High Court, in these cases, enhanced the provisional compensation and also directed allotment of developed Abadi land to the extent 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq. mtrs. However, in respect of three villages, when it found that no development work had been carried out at all by the Authorities during the intervening period, the High Court chose to quash the Notifications including consequential actions and directed restoration of the land to the respective land owners.

       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment does not warrant interference. However, it would not form precedent for future cases.
       Result: The Full Bench judgment of the High Court affirmed and all appeals disposed of in terms of the said judgment of the Full Bench.
       In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petitions also stand disposed of.

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

These matters were heard in detail for few days and hearing was concluded on 05.02.2015. Thereupon, we communicated the result in the open Court by pronouncing that appeals were dismissed and the reasons shall follow. These are, thus, our reasons for dismissing the appeals.

Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.

PROLOGUE :

2) The subject matter of most of these appeals are the Notifications dated 12-03-2008 issued by the State of U.P. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (“Act” for short) read with Section 17 of the Act as well as declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') vide Notification dated 30.06.2008. Land situate in various villages of Noida and Greater Noida in Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired. Some other Notifications under same provisions of the Act in respect of lands of these villages was also acquired by earlier Notifications. The purpose stated in the notifications was 'Planned Industrial Development'.

Urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act were invoked thereby dispensing with the right of objection otherwise given to the land holders under Section 5A of the Act. The total land which was acquired by these notification was 589.188 hectares. Some writ petitions were initially filed in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the said Notifications, with primary contention that invocation of emergency provision and taking away valuable right of the land holders under Section 5A of the Act was illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. Some of the writ petitions came up before the Division Bench of the said High Court. One was Writ Petition (C) 45777 of 2008 in the case of Harish Chand and Others v. State of U.P. and Others wherein the High Court upholding the very same Notifications, on arriving at the conclusion that invocation of Section 17 of the Act was justified, dismissed that writ petition. It so happened that another Division Bench of the same High Court decided Writ Petition (C) No. 17068 of 2009; titled Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and others. The Division Bench rendered its judgment dated 19-07-2011 in the said case accepting the aforesaid contention of the writ petitioners and holding that invocation of provisions of Section 17 of the Act was not justified. Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed these Notifications.

3) As a sequel, spate of writ petitions came to be filed challenging the lands acquired not only by the notification dated 12-03-2008 but even by earlier notifications as well. When these petitions came up before another Division Bench it noticed the aforesaid two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches. This led the said Division Bench to refer the matter to the larger Bench and orders dated 26-07-2011 were passed in this behalf. This is how the matters were placed before the Full Bench and by that time as many as 471 writ petitions had accumulated. All these writ petitions were taken up analogously by the Full Bench and disposed of vide judgment dated 21.10.2011 with leading case known as Gajraj vs. State of U.P. (W.P. (C) 37443 of 201!). The Full Bench of the High Court has accepted the plea of the land holders that invocation of emergency clause contained in Section 17 of the Act was impermissible and unwarranted. At the same time, the High Court also noticed that in respect of land of many villages, possession had already been taken and substantial development work carried out. Even compensation was paid in such cases, the High Court, instead of quashing the Notifications in respect of those villages, chose to adopt the middle path in an endeavour to balance the equities of both sides. Thus, it enhanced the provisional compensation and also directed allotment of developed Abadi land to the extent 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq. mtrs. However, in respect of three villages, whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 498

Cases Referred (13)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009