2010 Supreme(All) 1203

[2010(7) ADJ 172 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : AMITAVA LALA, A.C.J. AND A.P. SAHI, J.
SRI RAM CHAUDHARY, ETC. ETC. ....... Appellants/Petitioners
Versus
M/s. TECHNOLOGY PARK AND OTHERS .......Respondents
(First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 2008 Connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65654, 65656, 65658, 68436, 68439 of 2006, 4812, 14213 of 2007, 20756, 44625 of 2008, decided on 6th April, 2010)

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 17(4) and 11-A—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Section 154(2)—Acquisition of land—Technology Park/Electronic city—Permission granted—Cancelling by State Government—Whether permission under Section 154 still subsists, or has been cancelled/revoked lawfully—Held, permission granted by State Government for purchase of land under Section 154 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, vide sanction of State Government dated 19.7.1986, which was cancelled by order dated 20.4.1989, continues to subsists—And impact of cancellation order stood wiped out on account of subsequent conduct of respondents by continuing with project of petitioner-Company and acquisition of land—No occasion for State Government to have proceeded with acquisition, had petitioner-company been not valid tenure-holders, which by itself is indication of their continued possession and ownership acknowledged by respondents. [Paras 60, 78, 80 to 88, 92 and 231]

       (B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 17(4) and 11-A—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 154, 157-A, 157-AA, 166, 167—Acquisition of lands—Permission granted to acquire 200 acres of lands with certain conditions—Issue of notice to petitioner-Company to show-cause as to why lands acquired by it over and above 12.5 acres be not vested in State Government under Sections 154, 157-A, 157-AA, 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act keeping in view ceiling fixed thereunder—Held, no provision under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for cancellation of such permssion under Section 154 and consequences that may follow—Where cancellation, or withdrawal of permission is not on account of any fault on part of grantee, then in such an event principles of Articles 300-A of Constitution would come into play, as property has been acquired after making payment of consideration and substantial investment—This investment has to be compensated if grantee cannot for reasons beyond his control proceed to utilize fruits of permission—Thus, any proceedings, which have been initiated under impugned notices are, therefore, a nullity—And cannot be given effect to. [Paras 60 to 74, 80 to 88, 92, 230 and 241]

       (C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 17(4), 11-A and 9—Acquisition proceedings—Notification under Sections 4, 6, 9—Invoking urgency clause—Power of State Government of eminent domain—Lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 11-A—Whether lands of petitioner-outside purview of notifications issued under Sections 4, 6, 9—Proceedings arising out of notifications not been followed by pronouncement of any award—And possession not having been taken after expiry of stay order within two years thereafter, entire acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in view of provisions of Section 11-A of Act—As proceedings of acquisition has lapsed, question relating to invoking urgency clause, or otherwise does not survive—State Government has power of eminent domain to proceed with acquisition afresh—And in view of such observation in relation to such power being available coupled with fact that proceedings have lapsed, question of mala fides does not require any further opinion—Presence of alleged mala fides has been noted by Court, but Court refrained from giving any final opinion on said issue as validity of acquisition does not survive. [Paras 66, 126, 136, 195, 212 to 226, 230, 231, 242, 244 and 245]

       (D) National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985—Section 29—Greater Noida Authority—Master Plan 2021—Question relating to approval of Master Plan 2021 being still under consideration by National Capital Region Board under N.C.R. Act being pending would not by itself be sufficient to invalidate lay out plan of petitioner-Company and may require a reconsideration by authorities. [Para 231]

       (E) Land—Lay out plan—Grant of permission by State Government to such lands—Show-cause notice to cancel such permission—Meanwhile constitution of Greater Noida Authority—And lands acquired by petitioner-Company were brought within jurisdiction of G.N.A.by making it obligatory for petitioner-Company to apply for and obtain fresh permission and/or sanction from G.N.A.—G.N.A. not approved/sanctioned lay out plan submitted by petitioner-Company inspite of compromise, dated 9.1.1992 between petitioner-Company and G.N.A.—And without opportunity of hearing to petitioner-Company cancelled said compromise on alleged ground of non-submission of lay out plans and/or title-deeds—Whether rejection of lay out plan by order dated 27.5.2005 is bad in law and liable to be quashed—Submission of petitioner-Company that it has submitted all necessary documents, scattered lands will not hamper setting up proposed technology Park Project, that it has not been given a personal hearing in respect of lay out plan submissed by it to G.N.A. and that cancellation order passed ex parte—Held, that point was answered in favour of petitioner-company—And impugned order dated 27.5.2005 is quashed, leaving it open to authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. [Paras 60, 110 to 115 and 239]

       (F) Compromise—Cancellation of—According to petitioner-Company that compromise recognised subsistence of permission granted to petitioner-Company under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act—And that G.N.A. was not fulfilling its obligations under that compromise—G.N.A. without affording any opportunity to petitioner-Company, cancelled said compromise on alleged ground of non-submission of lay out plans and/or title-deeds—Whether order dated 11.10.2006 holding that compromise dated 9.1.1992 has become unworkable, inoperative, void and incapable of performance, is bad in law and liable to be quashed—Held, order dated 11.10.2006 is a nullity and void ab initio since same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice—Thus, impugned order is unsustainable and quashed with liberty to authority to pass a fresh order giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner-Company. [Paras 9, 10, 16, 60, 121, 125 and 198]

       (G) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 115—Promissory estoppel—Is not one way traffic—But it has to be adjudged rationally taking into account all balancing factors—Hence, factual aspects which supports cause of promissory estoppel both ways has been taken into account. [Paras 138 to 144]

       (H) Malice—Meaning and scope of—Concept of malice in law and malice on fact—Difference between—A discretionary power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner—And power of eminent domain of State to acquire land is by now well settled—And mala fides explained and discussed as regards acquisition of lands by State Government. [Paras 150 to 164 and 193]

       (I) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 6, 5-A, 9, 11-A and 17(4)—Acquisition of lands—Object and purposes—Discussed and explained in the light of case law—In instant case, petitioner-Company wants to get hold of property to discharge public duty—But, State wanted to acquire land for same purpose—If acquisition in name of eminent domain is allowed, then it will frustrate better public purpose only on name of private party—Therefore, eminent domain power of State cannot be affected, but its action herein appears to be questionable. [Paras 167, 178 to 193]

       (J) Lands Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 6, 5-A, 11-A and 17(4)—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Section 154(2)—Acquisition of lands—Whether for public purpose—Subjective satisfaction of State—Permission was sought for by petitioner-Company to hold excess lands under Section 154(2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act—Granted by State—And State acted on basis of proposal of petitioner-Company—That transfer was made for general public since permission has been granted by State to that extent—Presumption that State was subjectiviely satisfied with regard to transfer of such excess lands in favour of petitioner-Company in interest of general public—Therefore, public purpose cannot be said to be obligated on part of petitioner-Company—Hence, a special circumstances is prevailing in field that it is a dispute about public purpose between private party and agency of State—Public purpose cannot be said to be absent at all. [Paras 229 and 230]

       (K) Judicial review—In a case of judicial review, Court must remember that whether authority while exercising power, if any, even if it is discretionary in nature, remembered at least following five points, or not—(i) Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers; (ii) whether committed an error of land, (iii) Whether committed a breach of rules of natural justice, (iv) Whether reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached, (v) Whether abused its powers—If any of such mistakes is committed by authority, it will become vulnerable—And Court will obviously interfere with it. [Paras 88, 236 and 237]

       (L) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 11-A and 17(4)—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 154(1), 157(A), 157(AA), 166 and 167—Acquisition of lands—Grant of permission—But subsequently cancelled/revoked—Validity of order—Challenge to impugned notices dated 1.11.2006 and 11.10.2006 issued by Additional Collector calling upon petitioner-Company to show-cause as to why land be not treated to have vested in State of U.P. as holding of petitioner-Company is in violation of Section 154(1) read with Sections 157(A), 157(AA), 166, 167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act—Court treated permission granted to petitioner-Company under Section 154(2) to be subsisting and continuing, Additional Collector shall not proceed any further pursuant to impugned notices against petitioner-Company. [Para 241]

       Result; Order Accordingly.

       Cases cited :

       2006 (9) SCC 203 (Para 84); 2008 (3) ADJ 289 (Para 106); 2007 (6) SCC 143 (Para 128); 2005 (6) SCC 321 (Para 130); 1993 (3) SCC 259; 1969 (2) SCC 262; 1989 (2) SCC 505; AIR 1966 SC 893; 1974 (2) SCC 121; 1989 (1) SCC 628; (1963) 2 All ER 66; (1969) 1 All ER 208 (Para 131); 2008 (7) SCC 53 (Para 132); 1979 (2) SC 409; (1956) 1 All ER 256 : 1947 KB 130; (1880) ILR 5 Cal 669; (1905) ILR 29 Bom 580 (Para 138); AIR 1971 SC 1021; (1968) 2 SCR 366 : AIR 1968 SC 718; (1949) 1 KB 227 (Para 141); 2008 (2) SCC 777; JT 2008 (4) SC 470; 2007 (6) SCC 143; AIR 2007 SC 414; JT 2003 (10) SCC 232; JT 2003 (4) SC 549 (Para 140); AIR 2002 SC 322; 2006 (8) SCC 702; 2007 (5) SCC 447; 2001 QB 213 : (2000) 3 All ER 850 (CA); JT 2008 (7) SC 216; 2006 (3) SCC 620; 2004 (3) AWC 2234; 1985 (1) SCC 641; 2006 (8) SCC 502; 1997 (7) SCC 592; 1994 (5) SCC 509; 2005 (1) SCC 625; 1993 (3) SCC 499 : AIR 1994 SC 988 (Para 141); AIR 2008 SC 2045 (Para 142); 2004 (2) SCC 447; 2004 (1) SCC 12; AIR 1925 PC 232; 1974 (1) SCC 141 : AIR 1974 SC 158 (Para 144); 1978 (1) SCC 405; AIR 1996 SC 1509; AIR 1991 SC 564; JT 1992 (5) SC 364 (Para 146); 1989 (1) SCC 628; (1963) 2 All ER 66; (1969) 1 All ER 208 (Para 147); (1948) 1 KB 223 :(1947) 2 All ER 680; 1997 (7) SCC 463; 2003 (4) SCC 579; 2005 (2) SCC 42; AIR 1980 SC 1118 (Para 148); 2006 (6) SCC 430 (Para 149); 2005 (6) SCC 776; AIR 2007 SC 976 (Para 151); 1964 (2) All ER 348 (Para 152); 1980 (2) SCC 471; 1985 (3) SCC 1 (Para 153); 2005 (6) SCC 776; 2006 (6) SCC 430 (Para 158); 1975 (2) SCC 649; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23677 of 2006; AIR 1933 PC 183; AIR 1961 SC 1457; AIR 1965 SC 1150; AIR 1987 SC 88; 1993 (1) UPLBEC 165; AIR 2000 All 127 (Para 166); 2002 (4) SCC 160 (Para 170); 1995 ACJ 200; 2007(9) ADJ 447 (DB) (Para 180); AIR 1990 SC 645; AIR 1990 SC 1325 (Para 183); 2003 (9) SCC 542; 1996 (3) SCC 124; 1993 (2) SCC 84; 2004 (8) SCC 453; JT 2008 (7) SC 120 (Para 184); 1995 (3) SCC 507; 1996 (4) SCC 622; 1998 (4) SCC 387; AIR 2001 SC 437 (Para 185); 2008 (5) ADJ 171 (DB); 2005 (7) SCC 627; 1980 (2) SCC 471 : AIR 1980 SC 319 (Para 187); 1985 (3) SCC 1 : AIR 1985 SC 1622; MANU/SC/1248/2008; 2006 (10) SCC 1 (Para 187); 1990 (3) SCC 579; 2007 (1) SCC 641 (Para 188); 1964 (3) SCR 425 : AIR 1964 SC 1217; 1973 (2) SCC 337 (Para 189); 2002 (3) SCC 533; 2004 (8) SCC 14; 2006(7) ADJ 133 (Para 190); 1977 (4) SCC 337; 2000 (7) SCC 296; 1990 (2) UPLBEC 866; AIR 1998 SC 2504 (Para 190); 545 U.S. 469, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (Para 192); 1991 (4) SCC 531; 2007 (3) SCC 470; 2007 (9) SCC 779; 2008 (8) SCC 348; 2009 (6) ADJ 243 (DB) (Para 198); AIR 1993 SC 412 (Para 200); AIR 1993 SC 2517 (Para 202); 2006 (2) SCC 416 (Para 220); JT 1994 (3) SC 275 (Para 226); 2007 (8) SCC 705; 2007 (8) SCC 748 (Para 227); 2006 (9) SCC 203 (Para 229); Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7111 of 1988; 2001 (2) JCLR 790 (All); 2003 (6) AWC 4622 (Para 230).