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

2019 Supreme(All) 520

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ KUMAR JAISWAL, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
HARISH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ - C No. 16412 of 2018
Decided on : 24-04-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Ashish Pratap Singh, Adv., Jawahar Lal Pandey, Adv., Satish Kumar Rai, Adv.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers – Declaration that land is required for a public purpose – Application for quashing order and not to interfere in peaceful possession of petitioner land – Held, Court take note of fact that even in respect of petitioners claiming relief by asserting their title on basis of sale deeds which had been duly registered, writ petitions which were decided along with PIL was held that mere registration of a document per se does not create any new title and same is governed by principles enunciated by maxim nemo dat quod non habet – Petitioners therein having not been able to demonstrate any right, title or interest in property in their possession were held to be enchroachers/trespassers – Court not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Writ petition devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. (Para 46 , 47 and 49)

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner has made prayer for quashing order whereby representation filed by petitioner pursuant to direction issued by this Court was considered by Committee constituted in terms of an order and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on aforesaid bhumidhari land.

Findings of the Case:

Court take note of fact that even in respect of petitioners claiming relief by asserting their title on basis of sale deeds which had been duly registered, writ petitions which were decided along with PIL was held that mere registration of a document per se does not create any new title and same is governed by principles enunciated by maxim nemo dat quod non habet – Petitioners therein having not been able to demonstrate any right, title or interest in property in their possession were held to be enchroachers/trespassers – Court not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India

Result: Writ petition devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Jawahar Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 and 6.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.02.2018 whereby the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Writ-C No.45244 of 2017 (Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors.) was considered by a Committee constituted in terms of an order dated 19.05.2015 passed in PIL No.11539 of 2015 Ajit Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 ADJ 251 decided on 06.07.2017, and the same has been disposed of. The petitioner has made a further prayer to stop the process of demarcation of the land of gata no.264(M) area 1-9-10 (0.398 hectares) and gata no.265(M) area 6-0 (1.897 hectares) totaling 2.295 hectares, and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the aforesaid bhumidhari land.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have drawn our notice to the fact that the issue relating to encroachment over 482 acres of defence land acquired for air firing and bombing range, Tilpat Range vide notification dated 06.11.1950, was the subject matter of a public interest litigation, PIL No.11539 of 2015 filed before this Court. The aforementioned PIL along with connected writ petitions filed by certain persons asserting themselves to be purchasers of small pieces of farm land/plots out of the land in question and seeking to challenge the acquisition that took place in 1950 were decided by means of a judgment dated 06.07.2017 by this Court.

4. The factual controversy involved in the present case, as noticed in the judgment in PIL No.11539 of 2015 and connected matters, is that in the year 1950, by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (The Act, 1894) land at Tilpat, measuring 4294.38 acres was acquired for the Union Ministry of Defence to develop a Firing and Bombing Range for the Air Force. The land is situate in two States, namely, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. In these petitions, we are concerned with land measuring 482 acres (for short, 'the land in question') situate in Village "Nagli Nagla" and "Nagli Sagpur", Pargana Dadri, District Bulandshahr, now in district Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Out of 482 acres comprising the land in question, 105 acres is situate in Village Nagli Nagla and 377 acres in Village Nagli Sagpur. The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act was published on 6 November 1950, whereas the notification under Section 6 was issued on 7 November 1950. Possession was taken over by the Defence Estates Officer, Agra on 23 November 1950, applying the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and, as stated by the Defence Estates Officer, the name of the Military Estates Officer (Air Bombing Range) was also mutated in the revenue record.

5. It was also taken note of that before handing over possession of the land in question to the Military Estates Officer, Agra Circle, the entire amount towards compensation was deposited with the Collector, Bulandshahr.

6. Upon certain complaints being received with regard to encroachments over defence land at Tilpat in the year 2011, a Committee comprising a team of officers of the Air Force carried out an inspection on 29.12.2011 and made the following recommendations:-

"In view of the vast encroachment found in the area falling in Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (UP), it is imperative that immediate remedial measures should be adopted to stop and prevent further encroachment in this area and also to secure the area falling in Distt. Faridabad (Haryana), which is also substantially prone to encroachment due to unauthorized cultivat






































































































































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