Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Thakur Prasad And Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondent
Writ C No.61219 of 2011, WRIT C No.38527 of 2011
Decided on : 31-05-2023
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:
The land acquisition process was initiated for the development of Transport Nagar in Varanasi, with notifications issued under relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and subsequent declarations under Section 6. The process included public notices, objections, and the transfer of possession to the authorities (!) .
Several challenges to the acquisition proceedings were filed by tenure-holders, primarily disputing the legality of invoking the urgency clause, compliance with procedural requirements, and the lapse of proceedings under Section 11A due to non-payment of compensation or failure to pass awards within prescribed timeframes (!) (!) .
The courts have consistently held that the acquisition, once possession has been lawfully taken and the name of the authority is mutated in revenue records, attains finality, especially after awards are passed and compensation is disbursed or deposited (!) (!) .
Challenges based on the non-compliance with the requirement to tender 80% of estimated compensation before taking possession (as mandated by law after amendments) are generally rejected if the possession was taken lawfully and the proceedings are otherwise regular. The law recognizes that symbolic possession and proper documentation (like possession memos) suffice to establish lawful possession (!) (!) (!) .
The legal principle that acquisition proceedings which have attained finality, including awards passed and compensation paid, cannot be re-opened merely due to procedural lapses or delays in filing challenges, has been reaffirmed. Challenges filed after significant delay are often barred by principles of laches and finality of judgments (!) (!) .
In cases where awards have been passed, compensation disbursed, and possession lawfully taken, courts tend to uphold the acquisition, even if some procedural irregularities are argued, provided the proceedings are otherwise in compliance with law (!) (!) .
The courts have also clarified that mere mutation of land in revenue records does not constitute possession or confer title; actual lawful possession must be established through proper procedures, such as possession memos and Panchanama (!) (!) (!) .
In the context of ongoing disputes, courts have emphasized that the rights of tenure-holders who have not received awards or compensation remain protected, and the authorities cannot claim rights over such land until proper awards are made and compensation paid (!) (!) .
The law permits the authorities to proceed with development activities on acquired land where proceedings are final, awards are passed, and compensation has been disbursed, while protecting the rights of those who have not yet received awards or compensation (!) (!) .
The legal framework and judicial principles support that acquisition proceedings, once final and lawful, should not be disturbed by delayed challenges or procedural lapses, especially when substantial progress has been made, including possession transfer and compensation payment (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the legal principles and judicial stance regarding land acquisition, procedural compliance, finality of proceedings, and the rights of landholders within the context of the specified case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notification issued for land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous writ petitions and awards described. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. state's defense and compensation claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court discusses accrued rights and decisions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. legal precedents related to land acquisition. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court's analysis of the acquisition process. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. final ruling on agreed compensation acceptance. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 8. outcome based on distinct classes of tenure-holders. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri A. K. Sachan, Sri Saurabh Sachan and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Ishan Mehta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava, Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsels for the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi.
2. These two writ petitions are directed against the same acquisition proceedings and have been heard together. They are thus being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No.61219 of 2011 ( Thakur Prasad and others vs. State of U.P. and others ) is taken as the lead case.
3. For the planned development of Transport Nagar at District Varanasi by the Varanasi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘authority’) a notification came to be issued on 18.12.2000 under section 4(1)/17(4) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1984’). Enquiry contemplated under section 5A of the Act of 1984 was dispensed with by invoking section 17. A declaration followed under section 6/17(1) whereby 86.299 hectares land was acquired in four villages, namely, Karnadandi, Milki Chak, Sarai Mohan and Bairwan in Pargana Kaswar Sarkari/Raja, Tehsil and District Varanasi. Notice under section 9 of the Act of 1984 was issued to the tenure-holders on 25.06.2001, inviting objections. Possession of the acquired land was allegedly taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi and transferred to the authority on 17.04.2003. Steps were taken for declaring award in respect of the land acquired in accordance with U.P. Land Acquisition (determination of compensation and declaration of award by agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1997’). A meeting was held on 27.04.2011 under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Varanasi, wherein tenure-holders also participated. In such meeting it was resolved that compensation of acquired land be fixed at Rs.1.50 lac per biswa for parcel of land extending upto 30 meters from road and for the remaining acquired land, beyond 30 meters, at the rate of Rs.1 lac per biswa. The rate of land worked out to Rs.1186/-per sq. meter in the parcel of land upto 30 meters of road and Rs.790/-per sq. meter for the land situated after it. In accordance with the rates determined in the meeting of 27.04.2011 agreements were executed by the tenure-holders for the declaration of award under section 11(2) of the Act of 1894. As per respondents a sum of Rs.31,24,07,238/-has been paid to the land owners for an area of 38.7213 hectares. Agreements were also entered into in respect of additional area of 6.5276 hectares land belonging to 201 land owners and the compensation of Rs.5,46,38648/-has been deposited in the treasury as the land owners allegedly have not accepted the compensation. It is also asserted that 39 land owners have been paid amount of Rs.2,56,30,363/-for an area measuring 3.1355 hectares, though award in respect of such land has not been made so far. Cumulatively, for area of 48.3844 hectares land an amount of Rs.39,26,76,250/-has been paid or deposited. In respect of village Karnadadi an award consequently has been made on 27.09.2012 in respect of 20.919 hectares land. For village Birwan an award is made on 20.09.2012 for an
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
Compliance with Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory for absolute vesting of the notified land, and the requirement to pass the award within the time frame contemplated unde....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse when both possession is not taken and compensation remains unpaid, as established in the Indore Development Authority case.
Once land is vested in the government after acquisition, it cannot be returned to the original owners, even if not utilized for the intended purpose.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse even if the award was passed after the prescribed period under Section 11A, and the relocation pol....
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
