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

2021 Supreme(All) 1729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJAN ROY, RAVI NATH TILHARI, JJ.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Keshan And Ors. - Respondents
Land Acquisition No. 202 of 2014, Land Acquisition No. - 24178 of 2020
Decided on : 22-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Raj Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Jageshwari Prasad Mathur, Sharad Srivastava, V.K.Srivastava

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, and 17; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 122-B (4-F); Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Land dispute - Union of India challenged the order directing compensation for land purportedly not acquired - Held: Land was settled with private parties prior to acquisition proceedings; hence, cannot be resumed or acquired without compensation as per statutory mandates. (Paras 1-35)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Requirement for proper inquiry - Court directed the Collector to conduct a proper examination of entitlement to compensation based on existing possession and settlement documents, confirming the need for legislation adherence in the acquisition process. (Paras 15, 24, 34)

Facts of the case:
The Union of India challenged an order regarding compensation for specific land occupied by the Central Reserve Police Force, while private parties claimed rights based on prior possession and statutory settlement under relevant land reform laws.

Findings of Court:
The court rejected the claim of the Union regarding land resumption, affirming the settled status of the land with private parties under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Act, and upheld the need for compensation under the Act, 2013.

Issues: The primary issues were the legal status of land settlement against the attempted acquisition and the resultant compensation obligations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that settled lands could not be resumed without following the prescribed legal framework and confirmed the necessity for compensation to the rightful owners.

Result: Writ Petition No.202(L/A) of 2014 dismissed; Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020 allowed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of writ petitions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. facts regarding land acquisition and ownership (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. ownership and possession of the land (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. previous court orders regarding compensation (Para 15 , 16)
5. arguments from the petitioners (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 22)
6. court's rulings on jurisdiction and procedures (Para 24 , 25)
7. findings on resumption and rights of landowners (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
8. court's directive for land acquisition and compensation (Para 32 , 33)
9. conclusion and order of the court (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

1. These are two writ petitions, one bearing Writ Petition no.202 (L/ A) of 2014 by the Union of India whereas the other bearing Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020 is by the private opposite parties of the earlier writ petition.

2. The Union of India has challenged an order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Joint Organization, Lucknow. In the connected petition, the private persons have sought compensation for the land which is in possession of the Central Reserve Police Force (petitioner no.2 of W.P. No.202 (L/A of 2014), on the basis of the order dated 19.05.2014, that is, the very order which is impugned by the Union of India.

3. The dispute herein relates to Khasra No.1170 (area 1-3-0), Khasra No.1141 Sa (1-10-0), Khasra No.1141 Sa (area 0-5-0) and Khasra No.1200 (area 1-0-0). All the lands are situated in Village and Pargana-Bijnor, Tehsil & District-Lucknow.

4. For convenience, Writ Petition No. 202 (L/A) of 2014 has been treated as the leading writ petition.

5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a proposal for acquisition of about 159 acres of land was sent by petitioner No.2 to the State Government for the purposes of establishing and construction of group center of Central Reserve Police Force. This proposal was subsequently modified for acquisition of 135.21 acres of land recorded in the name of tenure holders and 30.90 acres of land of the Gaon Sabha. This proposal was sent in the year 1993.

6. Before any notification was issued for acquisition of the said lands under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894), the private opposite parties in this writ petition who are the petitioners in the connected petition initiated proceedings for settlement of the land in question in their favour in terms of Section 122 -B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1950’). Consequently, these lands came to be settled with them vide orders passed on 29.6.1994, as also, orders passed on 24.8.1994 by the Assistant Collector (First Class), copies of which are on record in Writ Petition No.24178 (L/A) of 2020. By the said orders, a finding was recorded that the applicants, who belong to Scheduled Caste, were in possession of the land in question since prior to 30.06.1985 and had acquired the rights of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3, namely, Keshan, Hari Mohan and Ashok Kumar are sons of Smt. Munni Devi who was the wife of Shyam Bihari. The orders under Section 122 -B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 in respect to them are dated 29.06.1994. As regards opposite party nos.4 and 5, namely, Barsati and Ramu, opposite party no.6 is Smt. Sona Devi, wife of late Baba Deen and opposite party nos.4 and 5 are their sons and the orders under Section 122 -B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 in respect to Baba Deen, their predecessor in interest, is also dated 29.06.1994. As regards opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9, namely, Smt. Ram Rati, Ram Gopal and Shree Kishan, opposite party no.7 is the widow of Rajjan Lal whereas opposite party nos.8 and 9 are sons of Rajjan Lal and the orders under Section 122 -B (4-F) of the Act, 1950 relating to them are not on record but the Khatauni pertaining to Fasli No.1422-1

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