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

2021 Supreme(SC) 846

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
K.M. JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Hamid Ali Khan (D) Through Lrs. & Anr. - APPELLANTS
Versus
State of U.P. & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 1267 OF 2012
Decided On : 23-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Abhay Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Kumar Milind, Shagun Ruhil, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Ravindra Raizada, Saurav Singh Chauhan, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Ravindra Kumar, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS1. The power under Section 17 (4) is an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acquisition was unjustified.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 5A, 6 & 17 (4) – Acquisition of Land – Public Purpose – Notifications relevant issued under Sections 4, 5A, 6 and 17(4) – Dispensing with the need of inquiry under Section 5A – Powers under Section 4 and 17(4) invoked in regard to the property of Appellants – The writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed – On an appreciation of the evidence made available by all the parties it is open to the court to conclude that no occasion arose for resorting to the power under Section 17 (4). (Para 23)

Facts of the Case:

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 coupled with notification under 17(4) was issued in regard to 52.361 hectares of land for the construction of a residential colony. The appellants did not raise any objection as the requirement of Section 5A of the Act stood dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 7.10.2005. It is the specific case of the appellants that despite the urgency clause being invoked, the possession was taken only in January 2006. The award was passed on 29.4.2009 only for plot 914 (belonging to the children of appellants). By virtue of the first notification the powers under Section 4 and 17(4) of the Act came to be invoked in regard to the property of the appellants. A writ petition filed before the High Court and same was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Findings of the Court:

Due to the delay with which section 6 declaration was issued, possession taken and the nature of the material on the basis of which the proposal was processed, the notification issued under Section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A is unjustified.

Result: Writ petition stand allowed

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The original appellants who stand substituted by their legal representatives unsuccessfully challenged notifications dated 11.4.2008 and 9.4.2009 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). By virtue of the first notification the powers under Section 4 and 17(4) of the Act came to be invoked in regard to the property of the appellants. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition.

2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 8.10.2004 coupled with notification under 17(4) was issued in regard to 52.361 hectares of land for the construction of a residential colony under the name of Bulandshhar Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshehar. Plot No.881 and 914 belonging to appellants children were included. The appellants did not raise any objection as the requirement of Section 5A of the Act stood dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 7.10.2005. It is the specific case of the appellants that despite the urgency clause being invoked, the possession was taken only in January 2006. The award was passed on 29.4.2009 only for plot 914 (belonging to the children of appellants). In regard to plot No. 881 which was also acquired, the compensation was not paid, it was averred. It is stated that till date on the spot neither any construction under the residential scheme has been started nor it ‘appears to be’ in the near future. The writ petition it must be remembered was filed in the year 2009. Even the allotment process, it is averred, was not started in regard to 52.81 hectares. Writ petitioners-appellants alleged that they were running a cattle market in Sy.880 and Sy.893. It is their case that in order to grab more land, the second respondent namely, the Authority started proceeding to acquire more land allegedly needed for the Commercial cum Residential Scheme which included the property in question. On 6.1.2006 the possession of the lands acquired earlier were taken. Allegation of demand for money by respondent no.3 is made if the appellants wanted plots 880 and 893 to be exempted. On 10.10.2006, the respondent no.2(Authority) wrote a letter to the Under Secretary about the existing construction on the land. In the letter dated 6.10.2006 and 10.10.2006 there is denial of existence of any cattle market and declaration under Section 143 of UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 in regard to Plot No.880 and 893. It is complained that the said letters gave a wholly false and incorrect report to the State Government and District Magistrate respectively. Appellants-Writ Petitioners filed representation dated 18.12.2006. They filed writ petition No.12379 of 2007 challenging the letters of the Collector dated 6.10.2006 and that of Vice Chairman of the Authority dated 10.10.2006. The said writ petition was however dismissed as withdrawn on 10.9.2008 when the impugned notification under Section 4 and 17(4) was issued on 11.4.2008. There is reference to the letters dated 3.1.2008, 8.2.2008 and 8.3.2008. On 27.3.2008 it is alleged that the 3rd respondent again sent false information that there are 13 houses over the land in dispute which was again false and against the spot position (Annexure 14 in W.P.). Reliance was placed on the layout plan, the photocopy of which is annexed in Annexure 15. It was contended on the strength of the same that plot No.880 and plot No.893 are situated at the end of Khurja city facing the Aligrah-Khurja National Highway, that is, the G.T. Road and it is not in the centre of the scheme as alleged by respondent No.3 in his report. It is specifically averred that plot No.880 and plot No.893 are not located in the centre of the scheme as alleged in the report dated 6.10.2006 and 10.10.2006. They are alleged to be located at the one end of the city facing G.T. Road. If a huge boundary wall is erected, the plots can be separated from the residential area without disturbing the

              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