Back
1989 Supreme(All) 225
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A.N. VARMA, N.N. MITHAL, JJ.
Kamla Pandey - Appellant
Versus
Collector Agra - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 8178 of 1987
Decided on : Apr 07, 1989
Prakash Chandra
The court has the discretion to quash acquisition proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but it will not do so where the land owner has contributed to the delay in making the award and where the acquisition is for a laudable public purpose.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 11-A - LAPSE OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - EXEMPTION OF LAND FROM ACQUISITION - DELAY IN MAKING AWARD - DISCRETION OF COURT TO QUASH ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's land was acquired for a housing scheme. Petitioner objected to the acquisition and requested exemption of 4 Biswas of land. The Government agreed to exempt 4 Biswas and retained the rest of the land. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government issued a declaration under Section 6 and possession was taken by the collector. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award in respect of the plots acquired except for some plots including that of the petitioner. The petitioner relied on Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act and requested the Agra Development Authority to remove the buildings constructed on the land or pay compensation. The Agra Development Authority stated that the matter of exemption of various plots including that of the petitioner was engaging the attention of the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had contributed to the delay in making the award by requesting the Government to exempt the land from acquisition. The court also found that the acquisition was for a laudable public purpose and that houses/flats had already been constructed and sold or allotted to various individuals. The court held that it would be inappropriate to quash the acquisition proceedings on a technicality, especially since the persons who would be hit by the quashing of the proceedings were not before the court.
Issues: Whether the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act due to the failure of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make an award within two years of the commencement of the Amending Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the land owner himself contributes to the delay in making the award, the acquisition proceeding ought not to be quashed in the exercise of the discretionary powers of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that it would be inappropriate to quash the acquisition proceedings on a technicality, especially since the persons who would be hit by the quashing of the proceedings were not before the court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed. The court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine the compensation payable in respect of the petitioner's land within two months from the date of the order.
A. N. Varma, J.
1. The parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of plot no. 243 situate in village Bhograj, district Agra, has claimed the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession of the said plot to the petitioner. The essential facts are that on 18-5-78 the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of a large number of plots including, inter alia, plot no. 243. The public purpose disclosed was the implementation of a housing scheme called 'Shamshabad Marg Grab Nirman Yojna'. Objections were invited under section 5-A of the aforesaid Act in pursuance of which the petitioner also filed an objection requesting that the land be exempted from acquisition proceedings. It is alleged that out of the total area of 1 Bigha 14 Biswas the authorities agreed to exempt 4 Biswas of the land retaining the rest of the area, namely, 1 bigha 10 biswas. After the disposal of the objections under section 5-A the Government issued a declaration under section 6 on 5-8-1980 and in pursuance of the same possession was also taken by the collector and delivered to the Agra Development Authority on 28-10-1980. It is also borne out by the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that in enforcement of the Scheme a large number of houses were constructed by the Development Authority over the acquired land including plot no. 243 belonging to the petitioner. In course of time, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, made an award which was published on 19-3-1985 in respect of the plots acquired in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications. In regard to some of the plots including that of the petitioner, namely, 243, however, the Special Land Acquisition Officer deferred the determination of the compensation on the ground that the matter regarding the exemption of these plots from acquisition was pending before the State Government.
Meanwhile, a new provision was inserted as Section 11-A in the Land Acquisition Act by the State Legislature by means of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (No. 68 of 1984) which came into force on 24-9-1984. Section 11-A provides that where a declaration is published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, ' 1984, if no award is made within the period of two years from the commencement of the Amending Act, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. Relying on this provision the petitioner made two applications to the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as the President of the Agra Development Authority, dated, respectively, September and December, 1986 inviting their attention to section 11-A and requesting that the Agra Development Authority may either remove the Malwa of the building constructed by the Development Authority over the petitioner's land, or to pay compensation to her at the market value or at the rate charged by them for the plots sold by the Development Authority in the vicinity of the petitioner's land. Not having received any response from the Development Authority or the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner filed this petition.
3. For the petitioner the sole point urged was that under section 11-A the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed inasmuch as no award was made in respect of the petitioner's land within two years of the commencement of the Amending Act. That being so, the Agra Development Authority was bound to restore possession of the petitioners' land acquired by them after removing the buildings standing thereon.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be granted the aforesaid relief. As noticed above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer did make an award in respect of the land a
