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

2019 Supreme(SC) 245

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Lt. Col. J.B. Kuchhal (Dead) and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2478-2479, 2480-2481 of 2019 and SLP (Civil) Nos. 16472-16473, 16475-16476 of 2018
Decided On : 05-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Tishampati Sen, Mr. Vipin Nair, Mr. P.B. Suresh, Ms. Mehak Hurra, Mr. Anshuman Bahadur, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Mr. Cheeranjeev, Mr. Shailesh Upadhay, Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Mr. Vishal Gehrana, Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Sahil Monga, Mr. Navandeep Matta, Ms. Ashwati Balraj, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Mr. Pramod Swarup, Ms. Alka Sinha, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Mr. Anuvrat Sharma.

IMPORTANT POINT
If state government constructs structures on un-acquired land, it has to pay compensation.

Headnote:Land acquisition – State putting up structures on disputed land without acquisition – Writ petitioners showing their ownership – State not showing any material showing their title over the land – high court directing for determination of compensation – No error. (Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

       State government acquired certain lands.

       Award was made on 31.07.1992 excluding the disputed land.

       Writ petitions was filed by the private respondents challenging the acquisition.

       It was the case of the writ petitioners/private respondents that without leave of the Court, the appellant started construction of City Bus Terminal in January, 2015 on the disputed land despite the protest raised by the writ petitioners. It was further contended that the construction raised by the appellant despite interim order passed by the High Court is unauthorised and illegal. Therefore, possession of the disputed land is to be directed to be restored to them.

       The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned notifications in so far as the writ petitioners' lands are concerned.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no error in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT :

S. ABDUL NAZEER. J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority challenging the final judgment and order dated 21.2.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Review Application No. 96395 of 2017 in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 24775 of 1990 and the final judgment and order dated 19.12.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 24775 of 1990.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under.

4. The State Government had issued preliminary Notification dated 30th November, 1989 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposing to acquire 91-11-0 bighas (57.218 acres) of land comprising a large number of khasras in Village-Bhagel Begumpur, Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad (now Gautambudh Nagar) at the instance of the appellant herein. This was followed by a final Notification dated 16th June, 1990 issued under Section 6(1) of Act. The State Government also exercised powers under Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Act and dispensed with inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.

5. The private respondents were served with notice dated 18.08.1990 under Section 9 of the Act. In the first writ petition filed by the private respondents challenging the acquisition, the High Court passed an interim order dated 10.10.1990 as under:

"Connect with Writ Petition No. 21643 of 1990.

Counter affidavit may be filed by the respondents within three weeks. Respondent no. 4 shall annex the concrete plan of the land, if it is finalized. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed thereafter within a week.

Meanwhile the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed plots, if they had not already been dispossessed therefrom. However, the petitioners are directed not to change the nature of the plots."

6. The Award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 31.07.1992 excluding the disputed land. On 05.12.1997 the first writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Possession of plot Nos. 136M and 137M was taken by the Collector and transferred to the appellant on 10.09.1999. Order dated 05.12.1997 dismissing the first writ petition in default was recalled on 01.05.2007. This writ petition along with several other matters was directed to be placed before the larger Bench. A large number of writ petitions were ultimately decided by the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Gajraj Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1, vide judgment dated 20.10.2011 but these writ petitions were not decided by the said Bench.

7. Another set of writ petitions came before the Full Bench on 14.05.2012 where the Court directed the Collector to get appropriate measurement of plots through competent revenue officials in the presence of the private respondents and submit report to the Court. The Collector submitted its report dated 06.06.2012 giving details of the plot Nos. 136, 137 and 138. The Full Bench directed this matter to be placed before the Division Bench vide order dated 09.05.2013.

8. The appellant filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in question is lying vacant.

9. It was the case of the writ petitioners/private respondents that without leave of the Court, the appellant started construction of City Bus Terminal in January, 2015 on the disputed land despite the protest raised by the writ petitioners. It was further contended that the construction raised by the appellant despite interim order passed by the High Court is unauthorised and illegal. Therefore, possession of the disputed land is to be directed to be restored to them.

10. The appellant filed counter affidavit stating that the writ petitioners have no right to challenge the Notification issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Act. Land has been acquired for residential complex to accommodate industrial labourers and persons of weaker sections, construction of roads, bus depot, and also green belt t


















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