Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Through Housing Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3023-3024 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 23996-23997 of 2017) with Civil Appeal Nos. 3025-3026 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 23899-23900 of 2017)
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Land Acquisition - Notification - Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court discussed the issuance of a Notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire certain lands. The court analyzed the legal provisions and the interpretation of Section 48, emphasizing the duty of the authority to act in a fair and bona fide manner and the justiciability of the decision to withdraw from the acquisition. The court also highlighted the requirement of offering an opportunity to the beneficiary before exercising the power under Section 48. The judgment clarified that the withdrawal from the acquisition must be preceded by offering an opportunity to the beneficiary and can be subject to judicial review. The court also discussed the legal principles established in previous judgments related to the exercise of power under Section 48.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the issuance of a Notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire certain lands. The appellant challenged the orders dated 31.08.2010 and 20.12.2016, which were passed in litigation lodged by persons claiming to have purchased from the original landowner in the year 1984.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the impugned orders. The court clarified that the dismissal would not stand in the way of the appellant to acquire the lands in accordance with the law. The parties were left to bear their respective costs.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of the Notification issued under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the requirement of offering an opportunity to the beneficiary before exercising the power under Section 48, and the justiciability of the decision to withdraw from the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the authority to act in a fair and bona fide manner and the requirement of offering an opportunity to the beneficiary before exercising the power under Section 48. The court also clarified that the withdrawal from the acquisition must be preceded by offering an opportunity to the beneficiary and can be subject to judicial review.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, stating that the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the impugned orders. The dismissal would not stand in the way of the appellant to acquire the lands in accordance with the law. The parties were left to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J. - Permission to file SLP(C) Nos. 23899-23900 of 2017 is granted.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have behind them a chequered history. It all began with the issuance of a Notification by the appellant under Section 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Adhiniyam") on 10.11.1973. The said Notification is to be treated as equivalent to a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire among other lands, Khasra Plot No. 7 and Khasra Plot No. 3, having a total area of 5.98 Acres in a certain village which originally belonged to one Shri Ram Ratan. It may be noticed here itself that Ram Ratan has passed away and the respondent-Ram Singh was his son and he has in turn passed away and is represented by his legal representatives. The appellant issued a Notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam on 17.8.1977. This is the equivalent to the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked on 18.07.1979. According to the appellant, the possession of the land was taken on 11.12.1981 and 31.3.1983.
The further case of the appellant is that there was a case of a sale effected by the original respondent-Ram Singh. There is a reference to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.09.1985 and an Award being passed on 28.09.1985.
3. It is the further case of the appellant that the original respondent-Ram Singh submitted an application on 19.11.1985 claiming compensation stating, inter alia, that he was the son of the Original Tenure Holder and that he had not executed any sale deed in respect of the land. There is a copious reference to certain litigation initiated against the subsequent purchasers (Dr. Raj Kumar Chaturvedi & Ors.). To come to the point in issue, it started with the Notification which was issued on 07.07.2005 purporting to exempt Khasra No. 3 and 7 from the acquisition. The appellant thereupon submitted a representation on 24.10.2005, inter alia, pointing out that the land has been acquired and the Award has been passed and what is more, possession was also taken. It is also contended that mutation was effected in favour of the appellant. This led to the Government issuing Notification dated 25.04.2008. The Government in the said Notification cancelled the earlier Notification dated 07.07.2005 and directed the matter for consideration by the concerned department. Aggrieved by the said Notification dated 25.04.2008, respondent-Ram Singh filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49944 of 2008. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court by judgment dated 31.08.2010. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.08.2010, the appellant preferred special leave petitions SLP(C) Nos. 34271 OF 2010 and 34090 of 2010. Leave was granted and Civil Appeal No. 6272 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 6273 of 2012 came to be disposed of by this Court permitting the appellant to seek a recall of the order dated 31.08.2010. The appellant moved an application for recall of order dated 31.08.2010 and the same was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 20.12.2016. The appellant challenges the orders dated 31.08.2010 and 20.12.2016. The other appeals are filed by the same appellant challenging the judgment on similar lines which have been passed in litigation lodged by persons claiming to have purchased from Shri Ram Singh in the year 1984.
4. We have heard Shri Vishwajit Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Yatinder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the original respondent - Shri Ram Singh as also Shri Anurag Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the subsequent purchaser(s).
5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant Sh
The exercise of power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be conducted in a fair and bona fide manner, and the authority must offer an opportunity to the beneficiary before withdr....
(1) Power to issue Notification would include a power to rescind Notification.(2) Proceeding under Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act is administrative in nature.(3) An order secured by fraud and ....
Section 48(1) of the Act and in view of the well settled legal position emerging from interpretation of Section 48(1) of the Act by the Supreme Court, it is clear as noon day, that since possession o....
Once land is vested in the government after acquisition, it cannot be returned to the original owners, even if not utilized for the intended purpose.
In the absence of any statutory provision, which empowers the authority to modify the scheme on its own, it cannot be held that provisions of Sub-Section (5) and (6) are attracted.
The authority to withdraw land acquisition ceases once possession is taken, necessitating fair hearing protections.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
