Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.S.Dhavan, A.B.Srivastava
RAVLNDRA SINGH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 10 January 1996
Writ Petition Nos. 26737, 22352, 26733, 26736, 26738, 26747, 29874, 29875, 29876, 29877, and 870 of 1993
LAND ACQUISITION - NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - U. P. INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1976 - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - GREATER NOIDA - URBANIZATION - ABADI - LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 5-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 143 OF THE U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 23 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 3 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 4 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 17 (4) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 10 OF THE U. P. INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1976 - SECTION 8 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 12 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 14 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 15 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 16 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 17 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 18 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 20 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - SECTION 27 OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING ACT, 1985 - ARTICLE 51-A (G) (H) AND (J) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 48-A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 243 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PART IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - U. P. (REGULATION OF BUILDING OPERATIONS) ACT, 1958 - REGIONAL PLAN 2001 - STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER V. JAIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS - SMT. SAWARNI V. SMT. INDERKAUR AND OTHERS - CHANDROO SINGH AND THREE OTHERS V. STATE OF U. P. AND TWO OTHERS - SECRETARY, INDUSTRY, STATE OF U. P. - SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, STATE OF U. P. - NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLANNING BOARD - GREATER NOIDA - U. P. - DELHI - INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Land acquisition proceedings were challenged by petitioners, who claimed a declaration of abadi under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, arguing that the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was ultra vires. The National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) was later impleaded as a party respondent, as the acquisition was part of the planned development of the Greater Noida satellite township under the National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were valid and that the petitioners' declaration of abadi did not entitle them to proprietary rights in the abadi. The Court also held that the elimination of Section 5-A from the acquisition proceedings was not appropriate and that the petitioners should have been given an opportunity to object to the acquisition under that provision. The Court directed the State Government to appoint an officer to inquire into certain aspects of the acquisition, including the petitioners' claims for special compensation and any exemptions that could be granted without disturbing the scheme of the National Capital Region.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were ultra vires in light of the petitioners' declaration of abadi under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950? 2. Whether the elimination of Section 5-A from the acquisition proceedings was appropriate? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to any compensation or exemptions in light of the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were valid and that the petitioners' declaration of abadi did not entitle them to proprietary rights in the abadi because: - The National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985, was a comprehensive legislation that coordinated planning in the spread of Delhi with the adjoining States, and the establishment of the Greater Noida satellite township was a direct result of this Act. - The petitioners' declaration of abadi under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was only a recognition of an existing habitat within an agricultural holding and did not create any proprietary rights in the abadi. - The petitioners' claim that the acquisition proceedings were ultra vires was based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985. 2. The Court held that the elimination of Section 5-A from the acquisition proceedings was not appropriate because: - Section 5-A provided a mechanism for the petitioners to object to the acquisition and to have their objections heard and decided by the appropriate government. - The elimination of Section 5-A deprived the petitioners of their right to be heard and to have their objections considered. 3. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the acquisition of their land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that they may also be entitled to exemptions from the acquisition if they could show that their land was being used for a conforming use, such as agriculture or forestry.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions partially, quashing the challenge to the vires of Sections 4, 6, and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but directing the State Government to appoint an officer to inquire into certain aspects of the acquisition, including the petitioners' claims for special compensation and any exemptions that could be granted without disturbing the scheme of the National Capital Region.
Land Acquisi tion proceedings are the subject of these proceedings. But the matter is not so simple so as to consider the issues isolated to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The aspects before the Court go beyond ac quisition proceedings. No issue would have been before the Court but for the fact that a planned exercise has been on for a decade and now will continue in continuity to depressurize Delhi so that it does not spew like a volcano and bring an end to itself by a self- indulgent unknowing exer cise to put everything under the sun in Lutyens Delhi where there is no more space left. Thus saving Delhi a consequen tial circumstance is a matter not uncon nected before this Court. Initially, when writ petitions came to this Court the petitioners did make a passing reference to the National Capital Region. So did the respondents. But, neither the petitioners nor the respondents submitted nor ap plied formally that one very crucial and essential party was conspicuous by its ab sence and be added to the proceedings. Eliminating or not arraying this particular party would have been fatal to the proceedings. This party is the National Capital Region Planning Board which owes its origin to the National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985.
2. The National Capital Region is a concept which has been given by an Act of Parliament and it co- ordinates planning in the spread of Delhi with the States which adjoins the State of Delhi (Previously known as the Union Territory of Delhi ). The States which border the State of Delhi are : the Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana. As Delhis presence is being felt even beyond 100 Kms. , within its strict periphery it cannot develop for lack of space. 1b decongest the National Capital the Parliament enacted the National Capi tal Region Planning Act, 1985. The direct result of this was that it was planning and development of satellite townships in the surrounding States. The purpose of this satellite township was primarily to place industry outside Delhi so as to make breathing within easier and given the oc casion, take out of it in a planned manner. Habitat was a consequential circumstance.
3. This clearly implies that the Greater NOIDA a satellite township itself become a circumstance arising out of the National Capital Region and to establish this region a notification was issued by the State of U. P. on 28 January 1991 under the U. P. Industrial Areas Development Act, 1976. Thus, if the total import of these proceedings are to be understood, not referred to by the petitioners nor em phasized by the respondents, the National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985, could not be overlooked. The Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was only an exercise to co-or dinate the intention of the two enact ments; one which attempts to decongest Delhi, and the other which makes a satel lite town outside it. This being the Nation al Capital Region Planning Act, 1985, and the other the establishment of the Greater NOIDA under the U. P. Industrial Areas Development Act, 1976.
4. The issues in these writ petitions, thus, will have to be seen in the perspective of the legislations referred t6 by the Court.
5. The specific villages where the Land Acquisition proceedings gave an oc casion to the petitioners to come to this Court are the villages of Kasna and Surajpur, otherwise part of the district of Bulandshahr.
6. The issues raised by the petitioners broadly are of the abadi (in other words, urbanization or habitat) which the respondents attempted to create. The petitioners contended that they also have a declaration from the Competent Authority under yet another legislation being the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Rules framed there under. The submission is that the petitioners have a certificate of a decla ration by the Competent Authority, in a statutory proceeding to a certified abadi and, thus, the Land Acquisition proceed ings to divest them in lieu of the urbanization pl
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
