BASHIR AHMED vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(UK) 357

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma
(1) Writ Petition No. 30 of 2012 (M/S)
BASHIR AHMED & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
(2) Writ Petition No. 29 of 2012 (M/S)
SATYA PRAKASH – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
(3) Writ Petition No. 28 of 2012 (M/S)
SMT. SAVITRI DEVI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
(4) Writ Petition No. 31 of 2012 (M/S)
DINESH KUMAR & ORS. – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 10.07.2013

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Learned Counsel
For the State : Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel
For the M.D.D.A. : Mr. Lalit Samant and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Learned Counsels

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 16 — A settled proposition of law that the Government cannot withdraw from acquisition or re-convey the said land to the erstwhile owners as the possession of land was already taken. (Para 22)
       (B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 16 — Provisions — Operation of — (1) U/s 16, Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances — (2) The land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose — and (3) The acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.
        (Para 23)
       (C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 16 — Provisions — The unutilized acquired land cannot be restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market value as on the date of notification — The only way to use the excess land is to utilize the land for some other public purpose or to dispose of the said excess land by the way of public auction.
        (Paras 26 to 28)
       ¼v½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 16 & LFkkfir fof/k dh izfriknuk fd ljdkj vf/kxzg.k ls izR;kgkj ugha dj ldrh u gh dfFkr Hkwfe dks izfrgLrkarfjr dj ldrh gS fdlh iwoZ Lokeh dks pw¡fd Hkwfe dk dCtk iwoZ esa fy;k tk pqdk FkkA ¼izLrj 22½
       ¼c½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 16 & izko/kku & dk izorZu &
(1) U/s 16, Land Acquisition Act, vftZr Hkwfe dk fufgr ljdkj dk gksrk gS lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr & (2) ,d yksd iz;kstu ds fy, vftZr Hkwfe dk iz;ksx fdlh vU; yksd iz;kstu ds fy, Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj & (3) vftZr Hkwfe tks ljdkj }kjk vf/kdkj;qDr gks lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr dks iqu% vH;fiZr ;k izfr gLrkarfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk okLrfod Lokeh dks ek= ,d dk;Zikfyd vkns’k ds vk/kkj ijA ¼izLrj 23½
       ¼l½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 16 & izko/kku & vuqi;ksftr vftZr Hkwfe dks izR;kLFkkfir ugha fd;k tk ldrk iwoZ Lokeh dks ftls foKfIr dh frfFk ij cktkjh Hkko ij i;kZIr izfrdj iznku fd;k tk pqdk Fkk & dfFkr vfrfjDr Hkwfe dks yksd iz;kstu esa iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gS ;k fQj lkoZtfud uhykeh }kjk fcØh djA
        ¼izLrj 26 ls 28½

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.

1. Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Lalit Samant and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsels for the M.D.D.A.

2. Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment and order.

3. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 12.6.2001. The petitioners have also mandamus commanding the respondent authority(s) to return back the land of the petitioner after taking compensation amount from the petitioners.

4. In writ petition no.30/2012, the petitioners have also sought mandamus commanding the respondent authority(s) to directing the respondent authority(s) not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing Khasra no.202 m measuring 0.1420 Hectare (new Khasra no.483) and Khasra no.538/1 (new Khasra no.549 Kha and 550 Ka) measuring 0.3400 Hectare situated in village Mazra Tehsil Sadar District Dehradun. In writ petition no.29/2012, the petitioners have also sought mandamus directing the respondent authority(s) not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing Khasra no.184 m measuring 0.240 (new Khasra no.488) Hectare situated in village Mazra Tehsil Sadar District Dehradun. In writ petition no.28/2012, the petitioners have also sought mandamus directing the respondent authority(s) not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing Khasra no.491D measuring 0.3160 Hectare situated in village Mazra Tehsil Sadar District Dehradun. In writ petition no.31/2012, the petitioners have also sought mandamus directing the respondent authority(s) not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing Khasra no.538 m measuring 0.592 hectare and Khasra no.167 measuring 1.72 acre situated in village Mazra Tehsil Sadar District Dehradun.

5. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No.30 of 2012 (M/S) are being taken into consideration and the said case has also been made the leading case.

6. Brief facts, leading to the filing of these writ petitions are, that State of Uttarakhand issued a Notification dated 12.6.2001 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alongwith the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act to acquire the land mentioned in the schedule annexed to the Notification for the public purpose namely for the construction of Bus Terminal by Mussorrie Dehradun Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the M.D.D.A.) in District Dehradun. Thereafter, in continuation to the notification dated 12.6.2001, a notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 28.2.2002 and possession was taken. According to the petitioners, there was no occasion to invoke the urgency clause as there was no urgency in the matter. Provision of Section 5(a) has wrongly been dispensed with.

7. A total land of 13.291 hectare was acquired by the State of Uttarakhand for construction of Bus Terminal but out of this only 4.25 hectare land was used for the purpose and remaining 9.199 hectare land is still lying vacant/unutilized and the petitioners are in actual physical possession over the same. Out of the remaining land i.e. 9.199 hectare, 2.238 hectare was further allotted to the Uttarakhand Transport Department for construction of workshop but later on the said allotment was cancelled.

8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which stand has been taken that land was acquired for public purpose and after issuance of this Notification possession was handed over and the land has been vested with the State u/s 16 of the Act and the petitioners have received compensation of the acquired land. This fact is also not disputed by the petitioners. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions by concealing the material fact. It is nowhere pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(UK) 357

Cases Referred (6)