Back
[2010(9) ADJ 324 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : P.C. VERMA AND R.A. SINGH, JJ.
MEGH SINGH ….Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS …Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57925 of 2008, decided on 21st October, 2010)
(B) Land Acquisition Act,1894—Sections 11-A (as inserted by Act No. 68 of 1984), 11, 6 and 4—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 31-A, 21, 19 and 14—Time limit prescribed by Section 11-A for making award under Section 6—Was placed by inserting Section 11-A by Act No. 68 of 1984—For removal of possibility of unfair and arbitrary action of State and save citizen from such oppressive arbitrary State action—Thus, protection of Articles 14,19 and 21 was made available against such oppressive arbitrary and unfair State action—Section 11-A is, therefore, a safeguard to citizens whose land is acquired and they are compelled to wait for unlimited period for getting its compensation—This provision provides that if award under Section 11 is not made within period of two years from date of notification under Section 6 proceedings for acquisition will lapse. [Paras 16, 24 and 25]
(C) Land Acquisition Act,1894—Sections 11-A, 11-A Explanation, 11, 6, 4, 4-A, 17(1) and 17(4)—Interpretation of Section 11-A—Narrating principles of interpretation, High Court found that Section 11-A applies in cases of those acquisition proceedings which are initiated by invoking urgency provisions of Sections 17(1), 17(4) and 4-A—Elaborating several other features of Section 11-A, it was also found that it gives a substantive right to owners of property to retain their right if award is not given within two years of publication of declaration under Section 6—It has been enacted deliberately to save property holders from vagaries of inordinate delay at hands of authorities concerned—Sections 17(1) and 17(4) operate in field different than field to which Section 11-A applies—Applicability of Section 11-A does not depend upon Sections 17(1) or 17(4)—Expression "action or proceedings" occurring in Explanation to Section 11-A—Cannot be given different meaning depending upon whether the case is covered by Section 17 or otherwise—Expression "proceedings" takes within its ambit taking of possession in pursuance of declaration under Section 6—Thus entire proceedings of acquisition of land shall lapse if award under Section 11 is not made within period of two years of notification under Section 6—If mandatory requirement of Section 11-A is not fulfilled—Taking of possession as well as vesting of land—Would also lapse and land would revert back to land owner—Several other relevant features relating to this subject—Examined and projected.
[Paras 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 43, 45, 46, 49 to 51, 55, 60, 62 to 64 and 66 to 70]
(D) Land Acquisition Act,1894—Sections 11-A and 48—Statutory lapse under Section 11-A—Differs from withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48—Both provisions operate in different fields—Word "withdraw" used in Section 48—Indicates Voluntary and conscious decision of Government for withdrawal from acquisition. [Paras 52, 53 and 59]
(E) Land Acquisition Act,1894—Sections 4, 4-A, 6, 11, 11-A, 17(1) and 17(4)—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226, 31-A and 14—Notification for acquisition of land—Issued on 9.8.2004, under Section 4, applying urgency provisions of Sections 4-A, 17(1) and 17(4)—Thereafter notification under Section 6 was issued on 3.8.2005—But neither award made nor possession of land not taken even till October 2010—Acquisition proceedings stood lapsed after two years of publication of notification under Section 6, by virtue of Section 11-A and Article 31-A—High Court quashed both notifications, holding acquisition proceedings to be arbitrary, illegal and violative of mandatory law. [Paras 68 to 70 and 74 to 77]
Result; Petition Allowed.
Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 9.8.2004 issued under the purported exercise of the powers conferred under sub-Section 1 of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 pertaining to village Kisanpur, Pargana & Tahsil Koil, District Aligarh.
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notification dated 3.8.2005 issued under the purported exercise of the powers conferred Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pertaining to village Kisanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh.
(iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned to free Khasra No. 360 and 361 admeasuring 0.0800 and 0.4260 hectares respectively situate at Village Kisanpur, Pargana & Tahsil Koil, District Aligarh from acquisition.
2. Encapsulated facts of the case are that the petitioner has been the bhumidhar with transferable rights of the land contained in Khasra Nos. 360 and 361 admeasuring 0.0800 and 0.4260 hectares situate at village Kisanpur, Pargarna and Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh. vide notification dt. 9.8.2004 under Section 4(1) read with 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as Act), the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired. The declaration under Section 6 read with 17(1) of the Act was published on 3.8.2005.
3. It is asserted by the petitioner that till date the possession of the land in question has not been taken and the name of the petitioner (original tenure holder) still continues to be recorded in the revenue records. It has also been asserted by the petitioner that till date award under Section 11 of the Act has not been made by the authority concerned. At this juncture, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant writ petition complaining that the action of the respondent State in acquiring the petitioner’s land in the year 2004 and not delivering any award for a long period of six years is wholly unconstitutional and that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the provisions enshrined under Section 11-A of the Act. The petitioner, taking recourse to the provisions of Section 11-A, has contended that as the award has not been made within the statutory period of two years hence acquisition proceedings in question have lapsed.
4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the counter-affidavit and asserted in paragraph No. 4 of the counter-affidavit that the possession of the land in question was taken over by the State on 27.12.2005 vide document which has been annexed as Annexure No. C.A.-1 to the counter-affidavit. The respondents have also contended that the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were invoked for taking the possession. The same document has also been relied by the Aligarh Development Authority, Aligarh in its counter-affidavit to assert that the possession of the land in question was taken on 27.12.2005 by the State and thereafter the same was handed-over to it on the same day. It is thus contended that on account of invocation of urgency clause and taking over of possession the land has vested in the State. The respondents have contended that the possession of the land in question has been taken after invoking the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act would not be applicable to the acquisition proceedings in question and the mere fact that the award has not been made for the last six years is of no consequence.
5. From the respective pleadings of the parties the following issues emerge out for adjudication, which are hereunder:
(i) Whether the State action of depriving the tenure holder of his land under the Land Acquisition Act, without delivering any award/compensation for more than five years, would wi
SupremeToday
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
