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

2013 Supreme(All) 1040

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND ABHINAVA UPADHYA, JJ.
SANJEEV GARG AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3 and 30427 of 2011, decided on 10th April, 2013)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Madan Mohan, Anamika Singh, R.K. Awasthi, Malay Prasad, R.K. Jain and Manish Goyal for the Petitioners; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 48, 6, 4 and 9—General Clauses Act, 1897—Section 3(60)—U.P. Rules of Business, 1975—Rule 10—U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973—Sections 14(1), 16 and 17—Land Acquisition—For construction of Police Line—State Government rejected the claim of petitioners for release of land under Section 48—Legality of—Representation of petitioner dated 17.2.2007 for release of land and denotification of land—Principal Secretary (Home) found competent authority to decide the representation of petitioners—Not to be decided by any other department of the State—Withdrawal from acquisition is to be taken by the department which had initiated the acquisition proceeding since said department is best suited authority to determine as to whether land be released or not—Impugned decision of Principal Secretary (Home) deciding the representation of petitioners cannot be set aside on plea of bias as raised by petitioners—However, the impugned order dated 10.12.2010 is not sustainable having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice—Acquisition of land for Police Line could not be held to be bad on the ground that land use in the master plan was green belt—Impugned order dated 10.12.2010 set aside—Matter remitted back to State Government to consider the representation of petitioners for release of land—Direction issued. [Paras 18 to 68]

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—This is second round of litigation relating to land acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1981 for construction of Police Line at village Harsaon, district Ghaziabad. The first round of litigation commenced by filing Writ Petition No. 6900 of 1981 by predecessor in interest of the petitioners in this Court challenging the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 26th February, 1981 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 26th March, 1981. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 12th January, 2007 directing the State Government to consider the prayer of the petitioners for release of the land. The State Government by order dated 10th December, 2010 rejected the claim of the petitioners to release the land under Section 48 of the Act. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the State Government dated 10th December, 2010. Apart from challenging the order dated 10th December, 2010 passed by the State Government refusing to release the land, the petitioners have also made a prayer for quashing the Section 4 notification and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. For deciding the issues raised in these writ petitions, it is necessary to recapitulate the relevant facts in chronological order.

2. The facts are; the State of U.P. created a new district, namely, Ghaziabad on 1st November, 1976. For establishing a Police Line, apart from lease of 23.77 acres of land by Ghaziabad Development Authority, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the the Act for acquisition of 41 bighas and 5 biswas land which also included Plot No. 800, area 13 bigha and 4 biswas and Plot No. 801, area 3 bighas and 11 biswas belonging to the petitioners. Section 4 notification referred to the land as ‘arable’. Section 17(4) of the Act was also invoked. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26th March, 1981. On 14th April, 1981 notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued. The objection dated 27th April, 1981 was filed by Nand Kishore, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. The objections were heard on 29th April, 1981. On 5th May, 1981 the respondents claim to have taken possession of the land in question. Writ Petition No. 6900 of 1981 was filed praying for quashing both the notifications. On 12th May, 1981, the Division Bench passed following interim order :

“In the meantime, the respondents are restrained from changing the nature of the land, building or cutting trees standing thereon.”

3. The writ petition was dismissed for default on 8th July, 1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 13th March, 1985. The compensation was not received by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and was deposited in the Court. Representations were filed by the petitioners before the Chief Minister as well as the Governor of the State praying for de-notifying the land as per the provisions of Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act). On the representation of the petitioners Hon’ble the Governor directed the Principal Secretary (Home) for taking necessary action in the matter. Writ Petition No. 6900 of 1981 was restored on 30th April, 2003. In September, 2006, the petitioners again sent a representation to the Chief Minister for release of the land. The Division Bench of this Court heard the Writ Petition No. 6900 of 1981 and taking note of the subsequent events disposed of the writ petition by order dated 12th January, 2007 permitting the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation before the Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas and direction was issued to the competent authority to decide the same within two months in accordance with the relevant rules, Government orders, scheme/policy after hearing the parties concerned. The Division Bench noted in the or













































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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