Back
2019 Supreme(All) 821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWAL, JASPREET SINGH, JJ.
Jyoti Chaturvedi And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P., Thru Prin Secy, Housing And Urban Planning And Others - Respondent
Land Acquisition No. 139 of 2012
Decided on : 04-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Rakesh Bajpai, Adv., Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Adv., Pankaj Kr. Srivastava, Adv., Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv., Amit Dwivedi, Adv., Himanshu Kamboj, Adv., Mukund Tewari, Adv., Ravi Singh, Adv.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1), 5A, 6(1), 17, 27(1), 28(1) and 28(2) Land Acquisition (Amendment; and Validation) Act, 1967 – Section 4(2) – Whether declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act which can be assailed by petitioners on ground that it is not within time prescribed in Section 6(1)(ii) of Land Acquisition Act – Held, Point of limitation, it seen that notification under Section 4 was notified by Collector by publishing substance of same by beat of drum – Though petitioners tried to question of aforesaid date, but not bring any material on record by which it could be discerned that substance of notice was not published by local beat of drums – Thus, this date being last of three modes of publication as provided under Section 4(1) of Act would be date of commencement of limitation for purposes of making declaration of notification under Section 6(1) of Act – Petitioners by merely making bald statement cannot rebut presumption which is attached to official acts, thus relevant date and from said date if period of one year is reckoned, it would be found that declaration made is well within period as prescribed in law and thus there can be no fault found with making of declaration – Submissions of petitioners that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was not within time prescribed, does not find favour with Court – As far as other submission regarding malafidies of State to issue notifications under Section 4 and 6 of Act in respect of land which sought to be acquired in year 1987 also does not have substance – Petition dismissed. (Paras: 50, 51 & 53)
Facts of the case:
Whether declaration under Section 6(1) of theAct which can be assailed by petitioners on ground that it is not within time prescribed in Section 6(1)(ii) of Land Acquisition Act.
Findings of the court:
Point of limitation, it seen that notification under Section 4 was notified by Collector by publishing substance of same by beat of drum – Though petitioners tried to question of aforesaid date, but not bring any material on record by which it could be discerned that substance of notice was not published by local beat of drums – Thus, this date being last of three modes of publication as provided under Section 4(1) of Act would be date of commencement of limitation for purposes of making declaration of notification under Section 6(1) of Act – Petitioners by merely making bald statement cannot rebut presumption which is attached to official acts, thus relevant date and from said date if period of one year is reckoned, it would be found that declaration made is well within period as prescribed in law and thus there can be no fault found with making of declaration – Submissions of petitioners that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was not within time prescribed, does not find favour with Court – As far as other submission regarding malafidies of State to issue notifications under Section 4 and 6 of Act in respect of land which sought to be acquired in year 1987 also does not have substance.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the notification for acquisition dated 20.10.2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land of Khata No.989 of village, Behasa, Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil and District Lucknow as well as the declaration dated 15.11.2012 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently the writ petition was amended and the petitioners have further sought a mandamus to the effect that it be declared that the U.P. Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 15.11.2012 is ante dated and its actual date of publication is any date in between 22.11.2012 and 03.12.2012. Further ancillary reliefs have been sought to restrain the respondents from not dispossessing the petitioners from their respective plots as well as commanding the respondents not to demolish the constructions existing over the plot belonging to the petitioners.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that initially Khata No.989/1 and 2 of village Behasa Pargana Bijnaur Tehsil and District Lucknow having an area of 0.3040 hectare belonged to the respondent no.8, namely, Indra Pal.
3. Certain lands of village Bargawan and village Behasa Pargana Bijnaur Tehsil and District Lucknow were made the subject matter of acquisition by the State Government by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 08.07.1987 invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. Subsequently, the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 07.08.1987. This declaration included the land of Khata No.989 having an area of 2 bighas 19 biswa. The acquisition of the said land was for the public purpose of establishment of a residential colony of Kanpur Road, Prasar Yojna Part-V of Lucknow Development Authority. This was followed by an award dated 26.10.1989. Significantly, the award dated 26.10.1989 awarded compensation only in respect of portion and not of the entire land covered under the notification dated 08.07.1987 and the declaration dated 07.08.1987. The award did not make any compensation in respect of Khata No.989 of village Behsra Pargana Bijnaur Tehsil and District Lucknow. Thus, as far as the land of the respondent no.8 was concerned relating to Khata No.989 of village Behsa Pargana Bijnaur Tehsil and District Lucknow having an area of two bighas and 19 biswa was not made the subject matter of the award dated 26.10.1989. The Lucknow Development Authority for whom the said land was acquired prepared a layout plan for its Transport Nagar Scheme. However, it is the case of the petitioners that the said plot No.989 though was initially acquired under the declaration dated 07.08.1987. However, it was not made the subject matter of the award dated 26.10.1989 and as such no compensation was awarded, accordingly, it is the case of the petitioners that the acquisition in so far as Plot No.989 is concerned, lapsed.
5. The petitioners after making inquiry and finding that the aforesaid land of the respondent no.8 was not acquired, purchased the same from the respondent by means of four registered sale deeds. The details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. It is also submitted by the petitioners that the Tahsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Lucknow vide order dated 27.07.2010 mutated the name of the petitioners in respect of the plot in question which initially and previously was in the name of Indar Pal, the respondent no.8. The petitioners stated that they are the owner in possession of their respective plot since its purchase with effect from 10.06.2010 and they have raised constructions. The petitioners have further attempted to buttress their submissions regarding their possession with the fact that the Lucknow Development Authority had issued notice to the petitioner no.4 under Sections 27(1), 28(1) and 28(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development
