Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1710
[2010(8) ADJ 498 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
M/s SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD. AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 28505, 27068 of 2006; 72209; 72211; 72358; 74527; 74529; 75777; 75779; 75781; 75783; 77131; 77277; 77608; 77611; 77614; 77618; 77620; 77622; 77623; 77654; 77817; 77821; 78036 of 2005; 3481; 3484; 3595; 3974; 3976; 4172; 4173; 4174; 4176; 4223; 5271; 6321; 7446; 15280; 16110; 22225 of 2006; 73678; 77650; 77651 of 2005; 2107; 14330; 76034 of 2006; 76035 of 2005; 576 of 2006; 73517; 73678; 76454; 76483; 77872 of 2005; 2424; 44098; 71219; 71221 of 2006; 23448; 5719; 23446; 23191; 23192; 23251; 23254; 23255; 23189; 23188; 23258; 23195; 23194; 23193; 23256; 22116; 22118; 22970; 22971; 22973; 22974; 22975; 22976; 22977; 22978; 22979; 24939; 24940; 24941; 24942; 24947; 24948; 24949; 24950; 24951; 26873; 26875; 26877; 26878; 41999 of 2009; 34776; 34769; 34771; 34773; 35934; 34785; 35624; 35616; 34783; 34779; 34781; 34777; 35620; 35930; 34768 of 2006; 21118 of 2008; 24981 of 2009; 34768; 7066 of 2006; 26825 of 2009; 29638 of 2006; 75930; 77474; 68502 of 2005; 63254 of 2006; 69660 of 2009 and 847 of 2006 decided on 14th May, 2010)
Counsel :
Shakti Swarup Nigam and Siddharth Singh, K.T.S. Tulsi, V.B. Upadhyay, Satish Kumar Tyagi, W.H. Khan, A.H. Khan, Ravi Kant and Anurag Khanna for the Petitioners; Jafer Naiyer, M.C. Tripathi, R.N. Singh, Ashwini Kumar Mishra, C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 17(1) and 17(4)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Acqusition of land—Invoking urgency provisions—Whether invokement of urgency provisions was valid—Question of—Has to be decided on facts of each case—Powers of judicial review for test of materials is also limited—Court is required to see whether there are relevant materials which require invokement of urgency provisions and purpose of acquisition serves public purpose—In the instant case for planned development of Ghaziabad City, construction of residential colonies was urgently required—High Court examined entire materials on record and found that there were sufficient materials which justify invokement of urgency provisions—There were reports of competent authority for urgent public need of residential colonies—Consequently, acquisition was valid and not colourable exercise of powers—Several other relevants factors—Discussed and elaborated, clarifying that High Court cannot interfere with subjective satisfaction of authorities, which form basis of invokement of urgency provisions. [Paras 74, 75, 81 to 83, 94,98 and 107 to 110]
(B) Land Acquisition—Promissory Estopple and Legitimate expectation—Policy of Government to encourage development of urban areas and construction of housing colonies—Petitioners, private parties participated in this plan as private investor—There was no request of Government for development with private parties—In such situation neither doctrine of promissory estopple nor doctrine of legitimate expectation applies—Relevant legal aspects—Focussed. [Paras 65 and 59 to 72]
(C) Land Acquisition (U.P.) Amendment and Validation Act, 1974—Section 4—Purpose of amendment is to cure certain acquisitions which had been rendered ineffective—Its other features—Focussed. [Paras 98 to 100 and 163]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
By the Court.—In these connected writ petitions, the purchasers, owners and bhumidhars of the agricultural land in District Ghaziabad, have challenged the six notifications issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4 (1)/17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) all dated 16.10.2004, and the six notifications under Section 6/17 of the Act of various dates between 5.9.2005 to 31.10.2005 acquiring 499.446 hectares, equivalent to 1234.131 acres of land in village Sadarpur-I in district Ghaziabad, (area 269.004 hectares, vide notification under Section 6/17 dated 13.10.2005); Sadarpur II, (area 45.495 hectares, notification under Section 6/17 dated 5.9.2005); Rasoolpur Yakootpur, (area 68.537 hectares, notification dated 28.10.2005); Mahiuddinpur-Mainapur, (area 45.580 hectares, notification dated 5.9.2005); Naglapath, (area 67.179 hectare notification dated 28.10.2005); Morth (area 3.643 hectares notification, dated 28.10.2005). The Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short, ‘the GDA’) on the basis of the documents produced on record, alleges that the possession of the acquired land in respect of Sadarpur-I and Sadarpur-II was taken over on 18.11.2006, and that the possession of the acquired land in the remaining villages was taken over on 18.5.2006.
2. The land has been acquired under Section 4 with declaration that the provisions of Section 17 (1) are applicable to the land, also applying Section 17 (4) of the Act dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, for the public purpose namely ‘planned development of Ghaziabad Development Authority’ for residential colonies.
3. In almost all the cases, interim orders were issued at the time of filing of the writ petitions, staying dispossession of the petitioners from the acquired land under the notifications. In leading Writ Petition No. 28505/2006 M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation and others v. State of UP and others, the Court directed by its order dated 15.7.2009 to maintain status quo in respect of all the cases except those filed in the year 2009, and in which there was no interim order. The Ghaziabad Development Authority filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 25127/2009 against the interim orders. The Supreme Court was pleased to pass an order on 23.10.2009, as follows :
“Heard both sides.
The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the High Court. It is submitted on behalf of G.D.A., who is the petitioner before us, that several lands have already been taken over by the Authority and the construction is going on in the properties. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that already there is an order passed in their favour passed by the High Court on 22.5.2006 protecting their rights. That order may protect the respondents herein if it is not varied by the Court thereafter.
In the result, we set aside the present impugned order and request the High Court to dispose of the petitions pending before it at an early date. As there are several petitions pending before the High Court, the same Bench may bear all these petitions.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
4. Hon’ble the then Chief Justice by his order dated 4.11.2009 passed orders nominating all these cases to us. The hearing commenced on 21.12.2009 and was concluded on 17.3.2010.
5. We have heard Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shakti Swarup Nigam; Shri V.B. Upadhyay, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Satish Kumar Tyagi; Shri W.H. Khan, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.H. Khan, Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Counsel and Shri Anurag Khanna for the petitioners. Shri Jafer Naiyer, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri M.C. Tripathi, Add C.S.C. appears for State of UP. Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ashwini Kumar Mishra appears for GDA.
6. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Counsel requested for inspection of the records. The request was allowed. The counsels appearing for the petitioners were given opportuni
