Back
1996 Supreme(All) 1474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.K. SINGH, OM PRAKASH, JJ.
Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 20729 of 1991
Decided On : 08-10-1996
For the Appellant : B.D. Madhyan.
For the Respondents: Vinod Sinha, Vineet Sharma, J.C. Joshi.
The power to sue is specifically conferred on the Samiti under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, and that alone is competent to sue. The power of superintendence and control over the working of the Samiti under Section 26L(1)(i) of the Adhiniyam does not imply the power to sue, specifically conferred on the Samiti under Sub-section (1) of Section 12.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - POWER OF SUPERINTENDENCE AND CONTROL - POWER TO SUE - VESTING OF LAND - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to make an award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) in respect of the land excluded in the award dated 31.3.1987. The land was acquired for the construction of a market yard. The Petitioner contended that the possession of the entire land was taken on 23.4.1986 before the award was made, and therefore, the land vested absolutely in the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. The Respondents contended that the part area of the land was excluded from the award because it was relinquished by the Samiti with the approval of the Petitioner as the tenure-holders offered to withdraw their rases in which stay orders were obtained by them against the Respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioner, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., was not entitled to maintain the writ petition. The power to sue was specifically conferred on the Samiti under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (the Adhiniyam), and that alone was competent to sue. The power of superintendence and control over the working of the Samiti under Section 26L(1)(i) of the Adhiniyam did not imply the power to sue, specifically conferred on the Samiti under Sub-section (1) of Section 12. The Court further held that the possession of the entire land, including the part area excluded from the award, was taken on 23.4.1986, and therefore, the land vested absolutely in the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. The Court also held that the writ petition was not barred by limitation as the period of stay of the acquisition proceedings was excluded from the computation of the two-year period under Section 11A of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioner, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., was entitled to maintain the writ petition. 2. Whether the possession of the entire land, including the part area excluded from the award, was taken on 23.4.1986. 3. Whether the writ petition was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to sue was specifically conferred on the Samiti under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, and that alone was competent to sue. The power of superintendence and control over the working of the Samiti under Section 26L(1)(i) of the Adhiniyam did not imply the power to sue, specifically conferred on the Samiti under Sub-section (1) of Section 12. 2. The Dakhalnama dated 23.4.1986, which appeared to have been signed by Respondent No. 4, had not been controverted in any way and that went to show that the possession of the entire land as shown in the notification and the declaration issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, had been delivered in one go by the tenure-holders, notwithstanding the stay order dated 4.4.1986 having been obtained by the Respondent-tenure-holders, which admittedly, was not served on the Samiti. 3. The Explanation to the proviso to Section 11A of the Act provided that in computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
1. The Petitioner-Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as Parishad) seeks a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 and 3 to make an award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (briefly, the Act) in respect of the land which is excluded in the award dated 31.3.1987 (Annexure 8' to the writ petition).
2. The facts as succinctly stated, are that the Petitioner directed the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kichha, district Nainital (for short, the Samiti) to select land for construction of a market yard. Then the Samiti selected land in respect of which a notification u/s 4 of the Act (Annexure 1' to the writ petition) was published. The notification pertains to the lands situate in Mauja Somera and Siraulikala. The dispute in this writ petition relates only to the plots of lane situate In Mauja Siraulikala. A notification u/s 6 of the Act was also made simultaneously, but that was quashed in a writ petition filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 to 7 and then a fresh declaration u/s 6 was made on 25.2.1986. Looking to the urgency of the construction of the market yard, it is said that though no award was made, possession had been taken by the Samiti of all the plots of land as described in the notification and declaration, Issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively, on 23.4.1986.
3. An award dated 31.3.1987 was made in respect of the plots excepting the portions of the plots of land as staled in para 3 of the writ petition.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that the possession of the entire land as stated in the notification and the declaration, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act having been taken on 23.4.1986 before the award was made, such land came to be vested absolutely in the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act and, therefore, the Collector could not have legally excluded any portion of the plots of land as stated in the notification, issued u/s 4 the Act.
5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Respondent No. 3 In his communication dated 7.2.1987 (Annexure 1' to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8) sent to the Petitioner, stated that part area of plots of land as stated in para 3 of the writ petition aggregating to 9 bighas and 12 biswas was excluded from the award, because that was relinquished by the Samiti with the approval of the Petitioner as the tenure-holders offered lo withdraw their rases in which stay orders were obtained by them against the Respondent.
6. The Petitioner denied such averment made by Respondent No. 3 in his communication.
7. It is averred that the Collector and the land acquisition authorities connived with the tenure-holders and, therefore, part area of the plots of land as shown in para 3 of the writ petition was excluded from the award dated 31.3.1987. Contending that the possession of the part area of plots of land as shown in the notification issued u/s 4 of the Act had been taken u/s 17(1) of the Act and consequently such land stood vested in the State Government, the Petitioner prays that Respondent No. 2 and 3 be directed to make the award in respect of the lands shown in para 3 of the writ petition, which was illegally excluded from the award dated 31.3.1987.
8. Whereas Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 8 filed their separate counter-affidavit, Respondent No. 4 to 7 filed their counter-affidavit jointly.
9. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, Respondent No. 3, it is stated that after the publication of the declaration u/s 6 and after the disbursement of eighty percent compensation, the possession of the plots of land was transferred on 23.4.1986 by the tenure-holders and that no interim order was filed before him. If is denied that any land was excluded from the award dated 31.3.1987 under the pressure of the tenure holders. Rather, it Is stated that the Samiti itself passed a resolution dated 5.2.1987, in view of the changed circumstances to relinqui
