Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJESH BINDAL, CJ., J.J. MUNIR, J.
Nasir Ali and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 19100 of 2022
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Land Acquisition - Possession of Acquired Land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), Section 17(1), Section 6(1), Section 17(4) - Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, (2008) 9 SCC 177 - U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. [(1996) 3 SCC 124] - Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 426] - Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and others, (2019) 10 SCC 229 - Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, AIR 2020 SC 1496
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief against the demolition and dispossession of their houses, standing on land acquired for a residential colony. The land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Ram Ganga Nagar Awasiya Yojna, Bareilly. The petitioners claimed to be in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land, having purchased it through registered sale deeds after the acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' claims, stating that the sale deeds executed after the acquisition notification were void and conferred no title on the petitioners. The court held that the land had vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, and the petitioners were trespassers on the acquired land. The court emphasized that the petitioners could not challenge the acquisition directly or indirectly and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Validity of sale deeds executed after the acquisition notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Claim of settled possession and right to possession over the acquired land.
Ratio Decidendi: The sale deeds executed after the acquisition notification were void, and the petitioners were trespassers on the acquired land, which had vested in the State. The court emphasized that the petitioners could not challenge the acquisition directly or indirectly.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no force in the petitioners' claims.
ORDER :
1. The three petitioners have come together and instituted the present writ petition, because their distinct and individual causes of action are not different. The causes of action of the petitioners involve common question of facts and law, prompting them to combine against the same set of respondents, against whom they want relief. In substance, the petitioners' prayer is two fold: firstly, that the respondents be commanded by a mandamus not to demolish the petitioners' houses, standing over their respective plots of land until consideration of their case by the respondents, canvassed through a representation dated 31.05.2022; and secondly, an order restraining the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession over their respective plots of land, except in accordance with law.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these: Nasir Ali, the first petitioner is a resident of Village Harungala, Post R.K. University, District Bareilly and currently resides at Village Dohariya, Tehsil and District Bareilly. The second petitioner, Smt. Hasina is a resident of Village Chandpur Bichpuri, Tehsil and District Bareilly and presently resides at Village Dohariya, Tehsil and District Bareilly. The third petitioner, Smt. Taslim Jahan is a resident of Jagatpur, Nai Basti, Talab, Bareilly and presently also resides at Village Dohariya, Tehsil and District Bareilly. The first petitioner purchased a plot measuring 83.61 square meters, located in Village Dohariya from one Anwar Miyan son of Mohd. Taqi Painter through a registered sale deed dated 07.05.2018. The said plot is located in Khasra No. 58 of the village. It was purchased by Anwar Miyan from the original recorded owner of the land, Naresh son of Gendan Lal through a registered sale deed dated 18.01.2004. The second petitioner, Smt. Hasina purchased a plot measuring 167.22 square meters, also part of Khasra No. 58 of Village Dohariya from Naresh son of Gendan Lal, through a registered sale deed dated 17.11.2011. The third petitioner, Smt. Taslim Jahan purchased a plot measuring 83.61 square meters, part of Khasra No. 60 of Village Dohariya from Riyasat Ali and Anis Ahmad, sons of Mohd. Bachchan, through a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2019. Riyasat Ali and Anis Ahmad, vendors of petitioner No. 3, had in turn purchased the land from one Lal Bahadur through a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2010. It is asserted that the name of Lal Bahadur continues to be recorded in the revenue records, relating to Khasra No. 60.
3. It is the petitioners' case that they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of their respective plots, whereon they have raised their residential houses in the years 2018, 2011 and 2019, respectively. The petitioners live in the said houses along with their families. It is also asserted that the name of Naresh, son of Gendan Lal, the original owner of Khasra No. 58, whose rights ultimately petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased, continues to be recorded in the revenue records. The land comprising the plots of each of the three petitioners, two located in Khasra No. 58 and one in Khasra No. 60 of Village Dohariya, Tehsil and District Bareilly, shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'the land in dispute'.
4. It is common ground between parties that a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 3rd June, 2004. The aforesaid notification under Section 4(1) was followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894, which came to be issued by the State Government on 4th July, 2005. The two notifications aforesaid were issued by the State Government in order to acquire land for the purpose of development of a residential colony, going by the name Ram Ganga Nagar Awasiya Yojna, Bareilly. The aforesaid project was to be executed by the Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly (for short, 'the B.D.A.'). It i
The court established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to question finalized land acquisition proceedings where possession was taken and compensation paid.
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 acceptance of the acquisition and the award by the writ petitioners, along with the possession of the acquired land and the entitlement to....
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
