SUPREME COURT
, J
Manohar Lal – Appellant
Versus
Ugrasen – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 974 of 2007 | Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. high court's prior decision being appealed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of land acquisition claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's duty to deliberate on submissions. (Para 7 , 10) |
| 4. arguments regarding timelines and validity. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. limits on state powers to issue directions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. revisional authority's functions highlighted. (Para 20 , 22) |
| 7. court cannot grant unrequested relief. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. court's findings based on procedural failures. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 9. need for true disclosure & abuse of process. (Para 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49) |
| 10. final judgment issued. (Para 53) |
1. Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 22nd July, 2003 passed in C.M.W.P. No.6644 of 1989 by which the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1 - Ugrasen quashing the allotment of land made in
favour of appellant - Manohar Lal and further directed to make the allotment of land in favour of the said respondent - Ugrasen.
2. In these appeals, three substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court are involved, they are, namely:
(a) As to whether the State Government - a Revisional Authority under the Statute, could take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority?;
(b) Whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in contravention of the interim order of the Court is enforceable?; and
(c) Whether Court can grant relief which had not been asked for?
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that lands owned and possessed by predecessor - in - interest of private appellant Manohar Lal and respondent Ugrasen were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). Notification under S.4 of the Act was issued on 13.08.1962 covering about 32 acres of land in the Revenue Estates of Kaila Pargana Loni Dist. Meerut (now Ghaziabad). Declaration under S.6 of the Act in respect of the said land was made on 24.05.1965 along with Notification under S.17(1) invoking the urgency clause. Possession of the land except one acre was taken on 13.07.1965 and award under S.11 of the Act was made on 11.05.1970. The Government of Uttar Pradesh had framed Land Policy dated 30/31.07.1963 to the effect that where a big chunk of land belonging to one person is acquired for planned development, except the land covered by roads, he shall be entitled to the extent of 40% of his total acquired land in a residential area after development in lieu of compensation. The High - Powered Committee dealing with the issue laid down that applications for that purpose be filed within a period of one month from the date of taking the possession of the land which was subsequently changed to within one month from the date of completion of acquisition proceedings.
4. Both the private parties, i.e. Manohar Lal and Ugrasen claimed that they had made applications to claim the benefit under the said policy within time. Shri Ugrasen claimed that he had submitted the application on 31.12.1966 but no action was taken on the said application. Therefore, he filed another application on 7.9.1971. Manohar Lal - appellant claimed to have filed application for the said purpose on 22.6.1969 and was allotted land bearing plot Nos. 5, 7 to 16 and 25 to 33 in Sector 3N vide order dated 27.12.1979 as per the direction of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Shri Ugrasen filed Writ Petition No. 1932 of 1980 before Allahabad High Court challenging the said order dated 27.12.1979. Subsequently, vide order dated 7.3.1980, the land allotted to Manohar Lal was changed to Plot Nos. 25 to 33. At the time of consideration of application of Ugrasen by the State Government, the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter called GDA) vide letter dated 18.3.1980 pointed out that submission of application by Shri Ugrasen was surrounded by suspicious circum
Rakesh Ranjan Verma and Others v. State of Bihar and Others
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Others
Poonam Verma and Others v. Delhi Development Authority
State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Others
The Purtabpore Co., Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Others
Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar and Others
Anirudhsinhji Karansinghji Jadeja and Another v. State of Gujarat
K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. and Others
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another
Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Others
M/s Tilokchand Motichand and Others v. H.B. Munshi and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.