1. Land acquisition under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 — Challenge to acquisition due to non-service of notice under Section 29. (Para 2 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 235
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad - Appellant
Versus
Chandra Shekhar and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3855 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 779 of 2016)
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Important Points
Failure to serve statutory pre-acquisition notices under Section 29 of the 1965 Act vitiates the acquisition process. Where acquisition is not finalized before January 1, 2014, compensation must be determined according to Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compliance with Land Acquisition Laws
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition - U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad - 1965 Act, Section 28, 29, 30, 55 - The court held that the acquisition process was vitiated due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, and the appellant was obligated to pay compensation to the expropriated owners in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) appealed against the judgment quashing the acquisition of Khasra No.673 due to lack of opportunity for the respondents to submit objections as per Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition process was vitiated due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, and the respondents were denied an effective opportunity to submit objections, leading to the quashing of the acquisition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was obligated to serve individual notice upon the respondents under Section 29 of the 1965 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition process was vitiated due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, and the respondents were denied an effective opportunity to submit objections, leading to the quashing of the acquisition.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal by directing the appellant to pay compensation to the expropriated owners in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Vibha Bhat, Adv. Ms. Anamika Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanyat Lodha, AOR Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Vibha Bhat, Adv. Ms. Anamika Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanyat Lodha, AOR Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv
Table of Contents
2. Whether individual notice under Section 29 is mandatory for tenure holders not recorded in revenue records at the time of notification. (Para 12 )
3. Absence of both public notice under Section 28 and individual notice under Section 29 vitiates the acquisition process for the subject land. (Para 16 , 17 )
4. Non-compliance with mandatory pre-acquisition notice requirements vitiates the acquisition process; compensation for incomplete acquisitions is governed by the 2013 Act. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Acquisition quashed; compensation to be determined under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, with Social Impact Assessment dispensed with. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. What is the legal effect of omitting land from both public and individual pre-acquisition notices?
If land is missing from the public notice under Section 28 and no individual notice under Section 29 is served, the acquisition process is vitiated as it denies the tenure holder the essential right to submit objections. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. Which law governs compensation if the acquisition process was not finalized before January 1, 2014?
If the acquisition did not attain finality before January 1, 2014, the compensation shall be assessed in accordance with Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 18 , 19 )
8. Under what circumstances can the Social Impact Assessment procedure under the 2013 Act be dispensed with?
The procedure under Chapter II of the 2013 Act may be dispensed with if a major part of the acquired land has already been utilized for the notified public purpose and the study would cause undue delay in payment. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) is aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.10.2015, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby acquisition in respect of Khasra No.673 (mentioned as plot No. 673 in the impugned judgment), situated within the revenue estate of village Hariharpur, Tehsil and District Lucknow, has been quashed on the ground that the respondenttenure holders were not accorded opportunity to submit objections against the proposed acquisition in accordance with Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (in short, ‘the 1965 Act’).
3. The 1965 Act was enacted by the State legislature through Act No.1 of 1966 and has, thereafter, been re-enacted by U.P. Act No.30 of 1974, to provide for the establishment, incorporation and functioning of a Housing and Development Board in Uttar Pradesh.
4. Section 28 of the 1965 Act contemplates that when any Housing or Improvement Scheme is framed, the Board shall prepare a notice depicting the boundaries of the area comprised in that Scheme; the details of the land proposed to be acquired and the date by which the objections to the Scheme are to be invited. Such notice is required to be published weekly for three consecutive weeks in the Gazette and two daily newspapers having circulation in the area comprised in the Scheme, at least one of which shall have to be a Hindi newspaper.
5. Section 29 of the 1965 Act provides that the Board shall serve a notice in such form on such persons or classes of persons in the prescribed manner for executing the Scheme.
6. Section 30 of the 1965 Act enables the person on whom a notice under Section 29 has been served to make an objection in writing to the Board against the Scheme or the proposed acquisition or levy, etc. After consideration of such objections, and when the prior sanction from the State Government is obtained, the Scheme shall be notified under Section 32 of the 1965 Act, and it shall come into force therefrom.
7. Section 55 of the 1965 Act confers power to acquire land for implementation of the Scheme under the Act, and it reads as follows:
“55. Power to acquire land.- (1) Any land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. I of 1894), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, which for this purpose shall be subject to the modification specified in the Schedule to this Act.
(2) If any land in respect of which betterment fee has been levied under this Act is subsequently required for any of the purposes of this Act, such levy shall not be deemed to prevent the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act Ne. I of 1894).”
8. In purported exercise of its powers under Section 28 of the Act, the appellant-Board issued a notice on 17.07.2004 (Annexure P-1) giving a description of the Scheme called as the Sultanpur Road Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grahsthan Yojna at Lucknow. The said notice vividly described the lands/properties which were to fall within the Scheme, the map of the area, particulars of the Scheme and the details of the land which was proposed to be acquired was notified to be available in the Office of the Housing Commissioner. It was further stipulated that the objections to the Scheme shall also be received by the Office of the Housing Commissioner (Land Acquisition Section) within 30 days from the date of publication of the said notification.
9. It is a matter of record that Khasra No.673 at village Hariharpur did not find any mention in the aforesaid notification dated 17.07.2004.
10. The case of the respondents is that Khasra Nos.672 and 673 were mutated in their favour on 10.10.1999, as can be seen from the entries in the revenue record, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P.6.
11. It is also not in dispute that the tenure holding/ow
