HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.S.Dhavan, A.B.Srivastava
RAVINDRA SINGH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 01 October 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 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Acquisition of land for planned development in the National Capital Region - Petitioners' challenge to acquisition proceedings based on declaration of abadi under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Court holds that declaration of abadi is compatible with agriculture and cannot independently challenge acquisition proceedings - Petitioners' claim for exemption from acquisition for agricultural areas on the fringe of development area to be considered by appointed officer - Court directs State Government to appoint an officer to enquire into and ensure certain aspects related to conforming uses, special compensation for abadi, and exemption from acquisition.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, whose lands were acquired for planned development in the National Capital Region, challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that they had a declaration of abadi (habitat) under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioners contended that the acquisition proceedings were ultra vires and the notifications could not hold.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the declaration of abadi under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is compatible with agriculture and cannot independently challenge acquisition proceedings. The Court further held that the petitioners' claim for exemption from acquisition for agricultural areas on the fringe of the development area should be considered by the appointed officer.
Issues: 1. Whether the declaration of abadi under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, can independently challenge acquisition proceedings for planned development in the National Capital Region? 2. Whether the petitioners' claim for exemption from acquisition for agricultural areas on the fringe of the development area should be considered?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the declaration of abadi under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is compatible with agriculture and cannot independently challenge acquisition proceedings. The Court reasoned that the petitioners' abadi is only consequential to agriculture and it cannot stay independently so as to take up rivalry with planned urban development. 2. The Court held that the petitioners' claim for exemption from acquisition for agricultural areas on the fringe of the development area should be considered by the appointed officer. The Court reasoned that such areas were not meant to disappear, but protected with bias towards increasing them.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions partially. The Court directed the State Government to appoint an officer to enquire into and ensure certain aspects related to conforming uses, special compensation for abadi, and exemption from acquisition.
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 far the fact that a planned exercise has beei on for a decade and now will continue in continuity to depressurize Delhi so that i ( 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 on sequential circumstance is a matter n0t 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. To 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 to 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, unbanisation 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 thereunder. 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 urbanisa tion plann
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.