Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
C.K. PRASAD, DILIP GUPTA, JJ.
Globe Metal Industries - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Decided on : Apr 21,2009
ACQUISITION OF LAND - WRITS - U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ACT, 1965 - HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT SCHEME - NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 28, 29 AND 32 - ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - LAPSE - SECTION 11-A OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - DELAY IN MAKING AWARD - COMPENSATION - SECTION 23 (1-A) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - RELEVANT PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for the execution of a housing and land development scheme. They contended that the acquisition should be quashed as failure to serve the notice under Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965 deprived them from filing objections to the acquisition of their plots. They also submitted that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since the award was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Parishad Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the acquisition proceedings could not be quashed as the petitioners had failed to challenge the same within a reasonable time after the publication of the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Parishad Act. The Court also held that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act did not apply to the acquisitions made under the Parishad Act. The Court further held that the delay in making the award would not result in the quashing of the acquisition proceedings as the land owners were compensated by payment of additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings could be quashed for failure to serve the notice under Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965? 2. Whether the acquisition had lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 3. Whether the delay in making the award would result in the quashing of the acquisition proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings could not be quashed as the petitioners had failed to challenge the same within a reasonable time after the publication of the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Parishad Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Aflatoon and Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., AIR 1974 SC 2077, The Ramjas Foundation and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852, State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. Vs. L. Krishnan and Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 250, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Vs. Bheru Lal and Ors., JT 2002 (7) SC 310 and Government of A. P. and Ors. Vs. Kollutla Obi Reddy and Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 493 to hold that the writ petitions filed after a long passage of time to challenge the acquisition proceedings should not be entertained. 2. The Court held that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act did not apply to the acquisitions made under the Parishad Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1028, Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Vasantrao and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 3499 and Satya Pal and Ors. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2235 to hold that the Land Acquisition Act, as modified, stands incorporated in the Parishad Act and so the Parishad Act would remain unaffected by subsequent amendments in the Land Acquisition Act but the beneficial amendments subsequently made in Land Acquisition Act for determination and payment of compensation would apply to acquisition under the Parishad Act in order to save the Parishad Act from the vice of hostile discrimination. 3. The Court held that the delay in making the award would not result in the quashing of the acquisition proceedings as the land owners were compensated by payment of additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Chand Vs. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 44 to hold that the delay of 14 years in making the award results in blocking the market value of the land to a distant past which is against the spirit of the Land Acquisition Act, but at the same time it has to remembered that the acquisition therein was of the year 1959 when Section 23 (1-A) did not exist in the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed. The Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make the award within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced by either of the parties before the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
1. THESE three writ petitions have been filed for quashing the proceedings for acquisition of certain plots under Sections 28 and 32 of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ''parishad Act') as well as for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents should be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over such plots.
2. THE acquisition under challenge was initiated by 'the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad' (hereinafter referred to as the ''board') for execution of the housing and land development scheme framed by it called "manjhola Bhumi Vikas Evam Grihsthan Yojana No. 4 (Part-II) Moradabad" (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheme'). The Board prepared the notice dated 22nd September, 1984 under Section 28 (1) of the Parishad Act and published this notice in the U. P. Gazette on 6th October, 1984. Subsequently, after considering the objections filed against the proposed acquisition, the Board published the notification dated 11th January, 1991 in the Gazette on 9th February, 1991. This notification under Section 32 (1) of the Parishad Act mentioned that the Board had sanctioned the Scheme on 12th March, 1987 and the State Government had also granted approval to it on 21st August, 1989. The plots involved in all the three petitions were included in the said notification and in terms of Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ''land Acquisition Act'), as substituted by the Schedule to the Parishad Act, the State Government, in the interest of the expeditious execution of the Scheme, directed that the Collector could on the expiration of the 15 days from the publication of the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act take possession of the land even though no award had been made. The Collector took possession of the plots involved in the present petitions and in terms of Section 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as added by the Schedule to the Parishad Act, gave charge of the land to the representative of the Housing Commissioner upon payment of the cost of the acquisition on 30th October, 2004 and 9th November, 2005. The present petitions have thereafter been filed in the year 2006 for the reliefs mentioned above and interim orders were granted in all the three petitions that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute until further orders. Stay vacating applications alongwith the counter affidavits were filed in the said writ petitions. The respondent-Board also filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court against the grant of interim orders which petitions were dismissed on 4th July, 2008. However, having regard to the facts, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to either dispose of the stay vacating applications or the main matter itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months. This is how the present petitions have been placed before us.
3. WE have heard Sri A. K. Mishra for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 26791 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 21089 of 2006 and Sri Rajeev Joshi for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9492 of 2006. Sri Anand Prakash Srivastava has appeared on behalf of the respondent-Board in Writ Petition No. 26791 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 21089 of 2006, while Sri N. C. Tripathi has appeared on behalf of the respondent-Board in Writ Petition No. 9492 of 2006. Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has made submissions on behalf of the State of U. P.
4. SRI A. K. Mishra submitted that the acquisition should be set aside as failure to serve the notice under Section 29 of the Parishad Act deprived the petitioners from filing objections to the acquisition of their plots. He also submitted that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act since the award was not made within a period of t
AI
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
