Back
2023 Supreme(All) 1962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ.
Kamal Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26767 of 2010, 10058, 18454, 4354 of 2015, 64182, 11001, 64741, 28124, 23850, 12207 of 2014, 44680, 39704, 32158, 21194, 21507, 18539, 8851, 69056, 62050, 27932, 61915, 59193, 59191, 59155, 27189 of 2013, 1794, 11154, 10785, 8071, 11839, 63563, 60603, 57958, 58065, 28807 of 2012, 8422, 56623, 73702, 56626, 55606, 50008, 49060, 71244, 71108, 28766, 68243, 68024, 28155, 25825, 20958, 19406, 19408, 18905, 66065, 6666, 6198, 503, 63143, 60589, 60651, 60102, 56629 of 2011, 26770, 26771, 23702, 43232, 23479, 23542, 23561, 20716, 42111, 13818 of 2010, 73194 of 2011
Decided On : 26-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.M. Misra, P.K. Chaurasia, Anil Kumar Shukla, Prem Chandra Saroj, Ms. Sarita Jhingan Shukla, Anil Kumar Mehrotra and Pankaj Dubey
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra, Ramendra Pratap Singh, Suresh Singh, Kamaljeet Singh, Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Shashi Prakash Rai, Ajit Kumar Singh, Sudhanshu Srivastava, Amit Verma, Apurva Hajela, D.K. Mishra and Manish Goyal
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5-A, 6, and 17(1)(4) - Writ petitions against the acquisition notifications for nine villages alleging improper invocation of urgency clause and denial of hearings - Court finds no real urgency justified granting of urgency without due inquiry, nor was the process mechanically executed - The principles of natural justice require that opportunities for objection be provided unless urgency is absolute - Historical context and legal precedents support the necessity for urgency in integrated development projects like the Yamuna Expressway - Acquisition upheld due to proper application of mind by State with concerning urgency - Appeals dismissed. (Paras 1, 5-6, 48, 202-204)
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Table of Contents
| I. | The challenge |
| II. | The arguments of the counsels for the petitioners |
| A. | Judgements relied by the counsels for the petitioners |
| B. | Reliance on similar dispute decided |
| C. | Aid to the above arguments by other counsels in the bunch |
| III. | On factual aspect, arguments of learned counsels for the parties |
| IV. | Argument of the Respondent's counsel |
| V. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) | Record of the State and counter-affidavits Village Pachokra Village Achheja Bujurg Village Rampur Bangar Village Usmanpur Village Raunija Village Dungarpur Reelka Village Rustampur Village Kadarpur Village Dhanauri |
| VI. A. (a) (b) (c) B. C. D. E. F. | Analysis Nature, scope and ambit of Section 5-A of the Act' 1894 Constitutional Scheme Statutory Scheme The Precedence : Legal Position The procedure for invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17 (4) Scope of judicial review On Pre-Post Notification Delay On the Apex Court decisions relied by the rival parties Appreciation of the material on the facts of the instant case |
| VII. A. B. | Findings
Noting from the record of the State |
| VIII. | Conclusion |
| IX. | Prejudice Caused |
| X. | Reliance on Shyroj Singh (supra) |
| XI. | Relief re: compensation |
| XII. | Order |
Heard Sri P.K. Chaurasia, Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, Sri Prem Chandra Saroj, Ms. Sarita Jhingan Shukla, Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Sri Pankaj Dubey. No other counsel has appeared to argue on behalf of the petitioners in this Bunch. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kamaljeet Singh, Sri Suresh Singh, Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Sri Shashi Prakash Rai has made his submissions on behalf of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Amit Verma, Sri Apurva Hajela and Sri D.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsels for the State respondents has adopted the arguments of Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority.
2. The present bunch of writ petitions are arising out of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT ' 1894 (hereinafter referred as the Act' 1894) for acquisition of lands of nine villages vide acquisition notifications published under Section 4 and 6 read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act' 1894. A bird's eye view of the status of acquisition of lands of nine villages in tabulation form is as under :
| S.No | Village
| Date of Notification | Total area acquired (as per Award) (Hect.) | Area under litigation (Hect.) | Date of Award
| ||
| U/s 4 | U/s 6 | U/s 11(1)
| U/s 11(2)
| ||||
| 1 | Usmanpur | 04.11.2009 | 18.3.2010 | 149.516 | 31.3521 | 31.12.2013 | 23.02.2012 |
| 2 | Dhanori | 16.11.2010 | 22.3.2011 | 414.2312 | 59.8231 | 31.12.2013 | 09.05.2012 13.12.2013 |
| 3 | Kadarpur | 02.12.2010 | 22.3.2011 | 113.8074 | 6.0284 | 30.03.2014 | 11.04.2012 30.03.2014 |
| 4 | Rustampur | 26.02.2009 | 26.2.2010 | 336.1968 | 53.7582 | 31.12.2013 | 20.03.2012 13.12.2013 |
| 5 | Doongarpur Reelka | 02.12.2010 | 24.3.2011 | 172.6197 | 38.6439 | 31.12.2013 | 14.03.2012 31.12.2013 |
| 6 | Raunija | 02.11.2010 | 07.1.2011 | 236.686 | 56.2388 | 31.12.2013 | 09.05.2012 21.12.2013 |
| 7 | Rampur Bangar | 26.02.2009 | 01.2.2010 | 19.9990 | 1.1016 | 15.06.2013 | 09.02.2012 05.06.2013 |
|
|
| 19.04.2010 | 28.07.2010 | 100.8183 | 20.6686 | 31.12.2013 | 20.12.2013 25.07.2013 13.03.2012 |
| 8 | Pachokra | 26.02.2009 | 19.2.2010 | 41.6525 | 16.8728 | 29.06.2013 | 22.02.2012 29.06.2013 |
| 9 | Accheja Bujurg | 19.04.2010 | 28.7.2010 | 1 | |||
