Rajeev vs State Of U. P. Thru Chief Secy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(All) 1694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRAKASH PADIA, JJ.
Rajeev And Others — Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy And Others — Respondent
Writ-C No. 64926 of 2011, 29430 of 2017, 61779 of 2011, 1339, 1348 of 2012, 18482, 37409, 51980, 65614 of 2013, 26928, 63412 of 2014
Decided on : 13-09-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Shiv Kant Mihsra, Adv., Ramendra Pratap Singh, Adv., M.J. Akhtar, Adv., V.M. Zaidi, Adv., Shivam Yadav, Adv., Pankaj Dubey, Adv., Adarsh Bhushan, Adv., Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Adv., Shiv Kant Mishra, Adv., Randhir Jain, Adv., Rajesh Kr Dubey, Adv., Vijay Shyam Bhasker, Adv.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Section 4,6,11and 17 (4) – Uttar Pradesh (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules,1997 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 – Constitution of India – Article 300-A – Challenged acquisition proceedings i.e. notification issued under Section 4 and declaration made under Section 6 of Act – On ground that their valuable rights to property cannot be taken away in violation of Article 300-A of Constitution without giving opportunity of hearing to them to oppose proposed acquisition as contemplated by Section 5-A of Act – Held, Court has to maintain an equilibrium between statutory rights of an individual and rights of people at large keeping in mind public interest while enforcing law – In such situation like this with which we are faced with in this petition, balancing the equities – Without quashing or disturbing declaration issued under Section 6 of Act, entitled to compensation according to provisions of Act as per rate prevailing on date of this judgment as awards in respect of acquisition were made under said Act – Petition disposed off. (Paras: 61 to 63)
Facts of the case:
Challenged acquisition proceedings i.e. notification issued under Section 4 and declaration made under Section 6 of Act – On ground that their valuable rights to property cannot be taken away in violation of Article 300-A of Constitution without giving opportunity of hearing to them to oppose proposed acquisition as contemplated by Section 5-A of Act.
Findings of the court:
Court has to maintain an equilibrium between statutory rights of an individual and rights of people at large keeping in mind public interest while enforcing law – In such situation like this with which we are faced with in this petition, balancing the equities – Without quashing or disturbing declaration issued under Section 6 of Act, entitled to compensation according to provisions of Act as per rate prevailing on date of this judgment as awards in respect of acquisition were made under said Act.
Result: Petition disposed off

JUDGMENT :

1. All these 11 writ petitions relate to the acquisition of land of village Begumpur, Pargana Dankaur, Teshil Sadar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

2. The State of U.P. vide notification dated 07.11.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") proposed to acquire 108.233 hectares of land of the aforesaid village for the planned industrial development through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).

3. In issuing the aforesaid notification, the State Government opined that as there is urgency for acquisition and the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 17 are applicable, the holding of an enquiry or hearing of objections to the proposed acquisition as provided under Section 5-A of the Act be dispensed with by virtue of powers conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act.

4. The aforesaid notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 17.03.2008 which stated that the land is required for the planned development in district Gautam Buddh Nagar through NOIDA.

5. The possession of the 7.559 hectares of acquired land was taken over on 07.06.2008 and the possession of 100.64 hectares of land was taken over on 15.06.2013. Since there were two possession memos, two separate awards were made under Section 11 of the Act on 12.01.2011 and 31.12.2013 in respect of the above two pieces of land.

6. The two awards provide that most of the tenure holders whose land had been notified for acquisition, have agreed for receiving the compensation in accordance with Uttar Pradesh (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules,1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Karar Niyamawali").

7. The award dated 12.01.2011 offered compensation at the lump sum rate of Rs. 870/- per square meter to the normal tenure-holders and @ Rs. 1,000/- per square meter to the ancestral tenure holders who agreed to accept compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali. The other tenure holders who declined to receive compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali, were offered compensation @ Rs. 135.28/- per square meter with other statutory benefits, such as 30% solatium,12% additional amount and interest, etc. on the basis of the exemplar sale deed No. 11 dated 28.04.2007.

8. The award dated 31.12.2013 awarded compensation to the normal tenure holders @ Rs. 1,490/- per square meter & @ Rs. 1,295/- per square meter to the ancestral tenure holders as per the Karar Niyamawali and @ Rs. 135.28/- per square meter to those who refused to accept compensation as per the Karar Niyamawali.

9. It may not be out of context to mention that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was challenged by the NOIDA Global Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Pvt. Ltd. by filing writ petition No. 7880 of 2008 wherein High Court on 18.02.2008 directed the parties for the maintenance of status-quo. The aforesaid writ petition was transferred to the Apex Court and was subsequently withdrawn on 03.08.2012. It is on account of order of status-quo operating therein that the possession of 100.64 hectares of land involved therein could not be taken up immediately.

10. The petitioners in these petitions have challenged the aforesaid acquisition proceedings i.e. the notification issued under Section 4 dated 07.11.2007 and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act dated 17.03.2008 on the ground that their valuable rights to the property cannot be taken away in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India without giving an opportunity of hearing to them to oppose the proposed acquisition as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act.

11. In other words, their grievance is that as there was no urgency to acquire the land, therefore, the State Government is not justified in dispensing with the enquiry/hearing under Section 5-A of the Act.

12. The State Government cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(All) 1694

Cases Referred (5)