SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(All) 1006

[2012(4) ADJ 617 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, JJ.
AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 32270 of 2010, 1236 of 2011, 3689 of 2010, 20772, 62708 of 2008, 3691, 14716, 28176 of 2010, decided on 13th April, 2012)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Sheshadri Trivedi, Satish Trivedi, Vishnu Gupta, Shamimul Hasnain, Shachindra Mishra, Ravi Kant, A. Tripathi, Amresh Tripathi for the Petitioners; C.S.C., H.P. Dubey, H.R. Mishra, Yashwant Verma, S.N. Verma, Pankaj Kumar Shukla for the Respondents.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4(1), 3(f) (iii), 5-A, 6, 11(1), 11-A, 17(1), 17(4)— Land Acquisition Company Rules, 1964—Rule 4—Land acquisition—Thermal power plants—Notification issued under Section 4—Invocation of power under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) —Legality of—Public purpose—Dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A—Invocation of urgency clause—Scope—Exercise of power under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) if challenged, the Government must produce appropriate materials before the Court that the opinion of dispensing the inquiry under Section 5-A has been formed after due application of mind and on the relevant materials placed before it—State must exercise such power with great care and caution as compulsory acquisition of property belonging to private individual—Acquisition of land for residential, commercial, industrial or institutional purpose are acquisition for public purpose—Exercise of power under Section 17(1) does not necessarily result in exclusion of Section 5-A—State has to independently apply its mind even in case of urgency as to whether power under Section 17(4) of the Act is to be invoked or not—Satisfaction of State Government for invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Act although is subjective but the same can be challenged—Whole acquisition process was not such in which there was any justification for invoking Section 17(4) of Act—Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 4.2.2008 and possession was taken after Section 9 Notice on 24.4.2008, 2.5.2008 and 4.8.2008—Development work carried on the site and a huge investment made—Quashing of notification after lapse of more than two years of declaration under Section 6 is not legally tenable—However, in cases pertaining Tehsil Karchhana, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that any development towards project has been undertaken, thus in such cases, relief of quashing the notification cannot be denied. [Paras 40 to 126]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These eight writ petitions have been filed by the farmers of Tahsil Bara and Tahsil Karchana of district Allahabad challenging acquisition of their agricultural land for establishment of two thermal power plants; one at Tahsil Bara and one at Tahsil Karchana.

2. Writ petition No. 32270 of 2010 Awadhesh Pratap v. State of U.P. and Writ Petition No. 1236 of 2011 relate to land acquisition for establishment of thermal power plant at Tahsil Bara, and other six writ petitions being writ petition No. 3689 of 2010 Anand Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and five other writ petitions relate to land acquisition pertaining to establishment of thermal power plant at Tahsil Karchana. In writ petition No. 32270 of 2010, Awadhesh Pratap v. State of U.P., counter-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties which is being treated as the leading writ petition. With regard to writ petitions relating to Tahsil Karchana, the reference of pleadings and facts in writ petition No. 3689 of 2010, Anand Prakash v. State of U.P. are sufficient to decide the writ petition relating to Tahsil Karchana.

3. The methodology and procedure adopted for undertaking proceedings of land acquisition for establishment of thermal power plants at Tahsils Bara and Karchana are almost similar hence, for appreciating the issues giving rise to all these writ petitions, it is sufficient to note the pleadings of writ petition of Awadhesh Pratap Singh, which is being treated as leading writ petition.

4. Recognising that electricity is an essential requirement, a basic human need and essential tool for socio economic development for the country, major legislative changes were brought by Parliament culminating into the enactment of Electricity Act, 2003. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Government of India even prior to enactment of 2003 Act has initiated power policy during the year 1991-92 for setting up power plant capacity of 1000 megawatt or more. The Government of India Ministry of Power issued a Government Order dated 10.11.1995 stating that public sector does not have adequate resources for putting up required incremental capacity and it was primarily for this reason that private power policy was introduced in order to attract domestic and foreign investment after the enactment of Electricity Act, 2003. National Electricity policy was issued by order dated 12.2.2005. A resolution dated 19.1.2005 had also been passed by the Government of India containing guidelines for determination of Tariff by bidding process for procurement of power by distribution licensee. The State of U.P. also after the enactment of Electricity Act, 2003 have framed Power Policy 2003. In the Power Policy 2003 issued by the State of U.P. it was stated that Power Sector needs significant investment to meet the requirement of all the three areas of generation, transmission and distribution. The State also emphasised in its policy that although the State of U.P. will endeavour to create additional capacity through State owned capabilities but the substantial investments have to be brought in by private sector as well. The Power Policy also contained a stipulation that required land would be acquired for the project and transferred at the acquisition price.

5































































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top