Back
2020 Supreme(All) 367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra, JJ.
Mahesh And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ -C No. -6532 of 2006
Decided On : 22-04-2020
For the Petitioner: Pankaj Dubey
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Pranjal Mehrotra, R. Venkataramani, S.K. Mishra, Satish Chaturvedi, Usha Kiran, Vimlendu Tripathi
Point of Law:
From the statement of object of Amendment Act, 1984 and the amendment brought in Act, 1894, it is apparent that legislature intended that acquisition for a company be no longer treated as acquisition for public purpose.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) – Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 – Rule 3 – Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21 and 300-A – For issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Notification published by State of U. P. under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 and Notification making declaration under Section 6 of Act, 1894 for acquisition – Held, there is a consistent view that in case there is an inordinate delay in approaching the Court and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the proceedings – Petitioners are also guilty of undue delay and laches creating an irreversible situation, and delay and laches being wholly unexplained, this is another ground nonsuiting the petitioners – Petition dismissed
Facts of the Case:
Land was proposed to be acquired for development, to be executed through Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited.
Finding of the Court:
There is consistent view that in case there is an inordinate delay in approaching the Court and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the proceedings – Petitioners are also guilty of undue delay and laches creating an irreversible situation, and delay and laches being wholly unexplained, this is another ground non-suiting the petitioner
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate for respondent-4.
2. Writ Petition No.6532 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “WP-1”) has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India by 22 petitioners led by Mahesh son of Harpal praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Notification No.2954/77-4-2005-58 Bha/2005 dated 18.07.2005 published by State of U. P. under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) and Notification No.4650/77-4-2005-58/Bha/2005 dated 18.08.2005 making declaration under Section 6 of Act, 1894 for acquisition of 38.429 hectare of land (94.0039 acres) of various plots mentioned in the Schedule enclosed to the notification, situate in Village-Badpura and Dhoom Manikpur, Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautambudh Nagar for planned industrial development in District-Gautambudh Nagar.
3. The land was proposed to be acquired for development, to be executed through Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'UPSIDCL').
4. It is said that petitioners filed objections before respondent-3 i.e. Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'ADM(LA)') claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.850/-per square yard or to exclude petitioners' land from acquisition, but without giving any opportunity, respondent-3 by order dated 26.11.2005 expunged petitioners' names from respective khatauni and passed order for recording name of UPSIDCL in khatauni. Mutation has been given effect to in khatauni on 08.12.2005. Details of petitioners' land are as under :-
| Sl. No. | Name of petitioner | Gata number | Area (in hectare) |
| 1. | Mahesh | 804 | 1.4540 |
| 2. | Chandrbhan | 855 | 1.5380 |
| 3. | Ravindra | 856 | 1.3520 |
| 4. | Charta | 857 | 0.9440 |
| 5. | Vikram | 858 | 0.3770 |
| 6. | Chander | 859 (M) | 0.1110 |
| 7. | Prakash | 860 (M) | 0.1110 |
| 8. | Sabhajeet | 1195 | 0.2760 |
| 9. | Shree Ram | 921 | 0.1430 |
| 10. | Triloki | 963 | 1.5000 |
| 11. | Budhpal | 983 | 0.3110 |
| 12. | Smt. Ramji | 821 | 0.8140 |
| 13. | Sumitra | 819 | 0.1290 |
| 14. | Tej Pal | 979 | 0.9480 |
| 15. | Aap Singh | 761 | 0.2120 |
| 16. | Krishna | 753 | 0.2530 |
| 17. | Rakesh Kumar | 799 | 1.1230 |
| 18. | Ashok Kumar | 795 | 0.1540 |
| 19. | Member Singh | 768 | 0.2630 |
| 20. | Bhagirath | 17 | 0.5311 |
| 21. | Sita | 29M, 199 | 0.3951, 0.2290 |
| 22. | Ram Kala | 737 | 0.3980 |
5. Before passing order of mutation, no opportunity was given to petitioners and even copy of order was not communicated. Apparently, land has been acquired for UPSIDCL for carrying out planned industrial development, but as a matter of fact, entire land has been acquired for a private company namely M/s Ambuja Cement Limited, and therefore, in the garb of public purpose a land has been acquired for a private company, which is patently illegal. Petitioners are also being pressurized to accept compensation at the rate of Rs.180/-per square yard. When petitioners refused, respondents prevailed upon some Tenure Holders and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.245/-per square yard. Petitioners' entire land has been acquired to give benefit to a private company, hence, it is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India. Notification was issued in only one newspaper i.e. Dainik Vartman Satta, which has no wide circulation. The authority for which land was sought to be acquired had to deposit 80 percent of compensation, but as per knowledge of petitioners, sam
