Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3548
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh, JJ.
Sita Ram Jaiswal and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 20828 of 1987
Decided On : 05-04-2016
For the Petitioner:- Tarun Verma, A.K. Upadhyaya, P.K. Kesari, Prabhat Agarwal, R.C. Srivastava, S.K. Mishra, S.K. Tyagi, Saurabh Raj Srivastava and V.K. Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- S.C., A.K. Pandey, A.K. Pandey, Anoop Trivedi and Vrindavan Mishra, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be justified by a real existing emergency, and the acquisition of land already vested in the State is not permissible.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Urgency - Sections 4(1) and 6(1) - The court found that the acquisition notifications were invalid as the land was already vested in the State and the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A was not justified due to lack of urgency.
Fact of the Case:
The State of U.P. issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for a planned development scheme. The petitioners challenged the acquisition on the grounds that the land was already vested in the State and there was no urgency to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition notifications were invalid as the land was already vested in the State and the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A was not justified due to lack of urgency.
Issues: The substantial question for consideration was whether the impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are valid in law and whether the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the land being 'Nazul' land, already vested in the State, could not have been acquired by the State itself. The dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A was not justified due to lack of urgency, and the notifications were therefore invalid.
Final Decision: The court set aside the notifications dated 19th August, 1987 and 19th October, 1987, pertaining to the petitioners' land, and awarded costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners.
Sudhir Agarwal and Shamsher Bahadur Singh, JJ. –
Heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Tyagi, and Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners. Sri Anoop Trivedi, Advocate on behalf of Allahabad Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel for State have submitted their arguments in defence.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed questioning notification dated 19th August, 1987 issued, under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1894), by State of U.P., proposing to acquire land being Gata No.TT 16, Edmonstone Road, (area 3 bighas 3 biswas 8 dhoors), situate at Civil Station, Pargana Chail, District Allahabad for the purpose of Planned Development Scheme of Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'ADA') i.e. for construction of a residential colony. Government dispensed with the compliance of Section 5-A of Act, 1894 in exercise of power under Section 17(4) of Act, 1894. Reason assigned for dispensation is that land is urgently required for construction of residential colony and there is urgency, therefore to eliminate delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5-A of Act, 1894, the same is dispensed with. Subsequent notification under Section 6 (i) of Act, 1894 was published on 19th October, 1987 which is also under challenge.
3. It is said that aforesaid land i.e. site No.16 (old) (20 new) Edmonstone Road, Allahabad (area 3 bighas 3 biswas 8 dhoors i.e. 9612 sq. Yard) is a 'Nazul' land. A lease was executed by State in the name of one Anwarul Ahsan. Sri Anwarul Ahsan, original lessee mortgaged disputed property to petitioner 1, Sita Ram Jaiswal and late Raja Ram Jaiswal (husband of petitioner 4 and father of petitioners 5, 6 and 7) with permission of Government, granted vide letter No. 4421 dated 24th August, 1958.
4. Sri Anwarul Ahsan fell in bad debts and wanted to sell his lease rights in disputed property in favour of Sita Ram Jaiswal and Raja Ram Jaiswal. Permission was sought from State Government which was granted by Collector, Allahabad vide letter dated 1/3 April, 1962 communicated on 02.06.1962. Lease rights, however, as such could not be transferred by execution of lease deed since one Sri J.C. Malik to whom also Anwarul Ahsan owe some debt, filed Original Suit No.22/26 of 1966 in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad for recovery of Rs. 57758.36. The said Suit was pending when Anwarul Ahsan, Original Lessee, died on 2nd July, 1967 and his legal heirs substituted therein. Suit was decreed by Civil Judge, Allahabad vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.1968 for recovery of Rs. 97738.83.
5. In the meantime, lease term expired on 07.06.1968.
6. Petitioners Sita Ram Jaiswal and Raja Ram Jaiswal submitted an application on 27th May, 1968 before Collector, Allahabad requesting renewal of lease in their favour.
7. Lease rights of disputed property were put for execution by Civil Court which were purchased by Sri Sita Ram Jaiswal and Sri Raja Ram Jaiswal on 24.07.1972.
8. Thereafter, a letter dated 20.02.1974 was forwarded by aforesaid two purchasers requesting Government to grant lease of disputed site in their favour. Since nothing happened, a reminder sent on 18.05.1976.
9. Thereafter, impugned notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) were issued. Challenging the same present writ petition has been filed.
10. Besides other, petitioners have challenged acquisition on the ground that there was no urgency, hence dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of Act, 1894 was wholly illegal and a colourable exercise of power. There is no master plan and planned development under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1973') and that land being 'Nazul' cannot be acquired since it is owned by State Government and notifications of acquisition are patently illegal.
11. There is amendment of writ p
