SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(All) 1260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.K. Jaiswal, Karunesh Singh Pawar, JJ.
Devi Prasad Chaudhary and Ors. Appellants
Vs.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors.- Respondent
Misc. Bench Nos. 1651 and 1505 of 1999
Decided On : 26-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nirmal Tewari, R.K. Sharma and S. Mirza
For the Respondents: M. Chandra, C.S.C., Nakul Dubey, Shishi P. Singh and Virendra Singh

Headnote:

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - Section 83 - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4 - Civil Procedure Code – Claim of compensation - Possession of land – Acquisition of land - Whether possession has been taken or not - Brief facts of case are that proceedings for acquisition of a large tract of land situated in Village and District were initiated by issuance of a notification under Section 28 of Adhiniyam for a Scheme - This was followed by a declaration made under Section 32 of Adhiniyam As provision of Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act was invoked possession of land was delivered award was ultimately made - It appears that plot in question was a larger plot but in plot measuring name of Gupta was entered who had earlier filed an application praying that land under his tenancy be exempted from land acquisition - In award it has been mentioned that exempted only a portion of land and possession over remaining land has been taken over - Thereafter has filed writ petition with grievance that he would be entitled for payment of compensation - A Coordinate Bench of this Court on considering fact that writ petition has been filed after a lapse of more than eleven years particularly when award was finalized therefore writ petitioner cannot be permitted to file such a belated writ petition and further once land has been acquired and possession taken over it cannot revert back to tenure holder dismissed writ petition vide judgment and order – Held, It is settled law that after notification Under Section 4(1) is published in gazette any encumbrance created by owner does not bind Government and purchaser does not acquire any title to property - In this case Notification Under Section 4(1) was published possession of land admittedly was taken and pumping station house was constructed - No doubt declaration Under Section 6 was published later - Admittedly power Under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with inquiry Under Section 5-A and on service of notice Under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz. pumping station house was to be constructed to drain out floodwater – Consequently land stood vested in State Under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances - It is further settled law that once possession is taken by operation of Section 17(2) land vests in State free from all encumbrances unless a notification Under Section 48(1) is published in gazette withdrawing from acquisition - Section 11-A as amended by Act 68 of 1984 therefore does not apply and acquisition does not lapse - Notification Under Section 4(1) and declaration Under Section 6 therefore remain valid - There is no other provision under Act to have acquired land divested unless as stated earlier notification Under Section 48(1) was published and possession is surrendered pursuant thereto - That apart Properties Respondent had purchased land after notification Under Section 4(1) was published its sale is void against State and it acquired no right title or interest in land - Consequently it is settled law that it cannot challenge validity of notification or regularity in taking possession of land before publication of declaration Under Section 6 was published - It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceedings for taking possession - A purchaser after notification does not acquire any right in land as sale is abs initio void and has no right to claim land under Policy - In present case petitioner has purchased plot in question through registered sale deed whereas notification under Section 28 of Adhiniyam has been issued - This shows that petitioner has purchased land in question after notification - Writ petitions is dismissed

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri Nirmal Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.

2. In the above captioned writ petitions, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 24.03.1999 passed by the Competent Authority/Executive Engineer, Construction Division-III, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (respondent no. 4), whereby the respondent no. 4, while invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam", directed the petitioners to remove illegal encroachment and construction made by them over Khasra No. 129 situated at village Bistauli, District Lucknow by 10.4.1999, otherwise, the Parishad will demolish the illegal construction made by them over the land in question for which they are responsible.

3. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above-captioned writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.

4. Brief facts of the case are that proceedings for acquisition of a large tract of land situated in Village Bastauli, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow were initiated by issuance of a notification under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam on 17.03.1979, for a Scheme called "Ram Sagar Mishr Nagar Vistar Yojna". This was followed by a declaration made under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam on 23.3.1980. As the provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked, the possession of the land was delivered on 3.2.1983, 11.1.1982, 3.2.1983 and 24.4.1985, respectively. The award was ultimately made on 18.09.1985.

5. It appears that plot in question was a larger plot but in minjumla plot Gata No. 129-M, measuring 0-2-0, the name of Triloki Nath Gupta was entered as Bhumidhar, who had earlier filed an application praying that land under his tenancy be exempted from the land acquisition. In the award, it has been mentioned that Awas Vikas Parishad exempted only a portion of the land and possession over remaining land has been taken over by the Avas Vikas Parishad. Thereafter, Triloki Nath Gupta has filed writ petition no. 5605 (M/B) of 1999: Triloki Nath Gupta Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow, with the grievance that he would be entitled for payment of compensation. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, on considering the fact that the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of more than 11 years particularly when the award was finalized on 18.9.1985, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be permitted to file such a belated writ petition and further once land has been acquired and possession taken over, it cannot revert back to the tenure holder, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 6.7.2000. Order dated 6.7.2000 reads as under:

"From the award dated 18-9-1985, it transpires that notification under section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam which is similar to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17-3-1979 and a declaration was issued on 23-3-1980. As the provision of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked, the possession of the land was delivered on 3-2-1983, 11-1-1982, 3-2-1983 and 24-4-1984. The award indicates that Plot No. 129 measuring about 18-4-14 was acquired. The petitioner filed the claim petition.

It appears that Plot No. 129 was a larger plot but in minjumla Plot Gata No. 129-M measuring 0-2-0 the name of Triloki Nath Gupta was entered as Bhumidhar. Sri Triloki Nath Gupta preferred an application praying that land under his tenancy be exempted from the land acquisition. It was mentioned in the award that the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad exempted only a portion of the land and possession over remaining land has been taken over by the Avas Evam Vikash Parishad, hence the petitioner would be entitled for payment of compensation.

It has been pointed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad that 288 Sq. feet land over which the constr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top