advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Land Acquisition Act - Sec.5 A and sec. 6 - on objections under sec. 5 A the land acquisition collector exempted the land from acquisition as the buildings are in existence as per policy- Despite of the report with out furnishing valid reasons, the Govt. proceeded with acquisition of lands is not valid and Acquisition is void - but High court come to wrong conclusion that the buildings are not approved buildings with out giving any validity of report of collector which is final one as per settled law - Apex court set aside the orders of High court = VINOD KUMAR ……… APPELLANT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ……… RESPONDENTS = 2014 ( January part)judis.nic.in/supreme court/filename=41186

   Land Acquisition Act - Sec.5 A and sec. 6 - on objections under sec. 5 A the land acquisition collector exempted the land from acquisition as the buildings are in existence as per policy- Despite of the report with out furnishing valid reasons, the Govt. proceeded with acquisition of lands is not valid and Acquisition is void - but High court  come to wrong conclusion that the buildings are not approved buildings with out giving any validity of report of collector which is final one as per settled law - Apex court set aside the orders of High court =

The  appellant  filed  a
      detailed objection under Section 5A of the Act  categorically  stating
      that the appellant has raised an A Class construction on the concerned
      area in the year 1999-2000 and therefore, inclusion of  the  land  for
      the purpose of acquisition is not  justified.  In  the  meanwhile,  on
      10.03.2008, the said land was released by the Authority in  favour  of
      Ritwiz Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. However, on  15.09.2008,  the
      Land Acquisition Collector  considered  the  objection  filed  by  the
      appellant under Section 5A of the Act and as per his report,  exempted
      the land of the appellant from acquisition since there was  already  a
      residential building on the land on the date of the  notification.  
In
      spite of the report produced by the Land  Acquisition  Collector,  the
      Haryana Urban Development Authority vide notification dated 06.02.2009
      made a declaration that the appellant’s land is to be acquired for the
      development of residential and commercial Sector Nos. 76,77 and 78 for
      which the notification was initially issued on 07.02.2008. =

  Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. v.  State
      of Bihar & Ors.[4], this Court observed that compliance of Section  5A
      of the Act is a sine qua non for acquisition of land. This Court  held
      that:
             “10.…..The decision of the Collector is supposedly final unless
             the appropriate Government chooses  to  interfere  therein  and
             cause affectation, suo motu or on the application of any person
             interested in the land. These requirements  obviously  lead  to
             the  positive  conclusion  that  the  proceeding   before   the
             Collector is a blend of  public  and  individual  enquiry.  The
             person interested, or known to be interested, in the land is to
             be served  personally  of  the  notification,  giving  him  the
             opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and  awakening  him
             to such right. That the objection  is  to  be  in  writing,  is
             indicative of the fact that the enquiry into the  objection  is
             to focus his individual cause as well as public cause…..”


      10.   In the light of the foregoing cases,  it  is  evident  that  the
      government  has  to  consider  the  report  of  the  Land  Acquisition
      Collector while  making  declaration  of  acquisition  of  land  under
      Section 6 of the Act. Further,  if  the  government  is  coming  to  a
      conclusion which is contrary to the report, then the government has to
      provide  appropriate  reason  for  the  same.  The  report   of   Land
      Acquisition Collector is extracted hereunder:-


      “REPORT U/S 5-A OF SECTOR 76, 77, 78 FARIDABAD-U/S 4 DATED 7.2.2008


|S. |Name of |Name  |Khasra |Total     |Type of|Whether  |Objec|Reco-mmen|
|No.|Place   |of the|No.    |constructe|Const-r|constru-c|tion |dation   |
|of |and     |Object|total  |d area    |uction |tion     |of   |of L.A.O.|
|Obj|Sector  |or    |land   |          |       |before or|the  |         |
|.  |        |      |       |          |       |after u/s|Petit|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |4        |ioner|         |
|1  |2       |3     |4      |5         |6      |7        |8    |9        |
|4  |Farid-pu|      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|   |r       |      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|   |76,77,  |      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|   |78      |      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|5  |-do-    |Vinod |18/13/3|1200      |A-Class|Prior    |The  |A well   |
|   |        |son of|(4-10) |Sq.yds.   |       |         |appli|laiden   |
|   |        |Birbal|8/2/3  |Residentia|       |         |cant |beautiful|
|   |        |      |(1-16)/|l Kothi   |       |         |has  |residence|
|   |        |      |6-6    |swimming  |       |         |reque|. Hence, |
|   |        |      |       |Pool      |       |         |sted |may not  |
|   |        |      |       |Boundary  |       |         |to   |be       |
|   |        |      |       |Wall      |       |         |get  |acquired.|
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |his  |         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |house|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |relea|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |sed  |         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |from |         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |acqui|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |sitio|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |n    |         |



                                                    Sd/-L.A.C.
                                                    15.09.2008”

11.   Hence, the declaration made by the Government for acquisition of  land
of the appellant under Section 6 of the Act does not provide any reason  for
arriving at a decision contrary to that of the report produced by  the  Land
Acquisition  Collector.  Therefore,  the  basic  protection  to  which   the
landowners are entitled to under the Act through  Section  5A  is  violated.
Consequently, the process of acquisition of the land  of  the  appellant  is
tainted with mala-fide and therefore, the same is liable to  be  set  aside.
Accordingly, the impugned acquisition notifications under Sections 4  and  6
of the Act in relation to the appellant’s land and the action taken  thereon
are hereby quashed. The impugned judgment and orders of the High  Court  are
set aside.  The appeals are allowed. No costs.

   2014 ( January part)judis.nic.in/supreme court/filename=41186       

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA

  NON-REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 973-974 OF 2014
              (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 14383-14384 OF 2012)






VINOD KUMAR                             ……… APPELLANT

                                     Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.               ……… RESPONDENTS







                               J U D G M E N T



      V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.



           Delay condoned. Leave granted.


      2.    These  appeals  are  filed  by  the  appellant  questioning  the
      correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 05.04.2011 passed in
      C.W.P. No. 7746 of 2009 and order dated 16.12.2011  passed  in  Review
      Application No. 388 of 2011 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
      Chandigarh,  urging   various   facts   and   legal   contentions   in
      justification of his claim.


      3.    Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate  the
      case of the appellant and also to find out whether  the  appellant  is
      entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.


           The appellant is the owner of 5 Kanals 6 Marlas of land  out  of
      which  934  square  yards  have  been  left  out  of  acquisition.  On
      07.02.2008, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority  Act,  1977,
      the   Haryana  Urban  Development  Authority  issued  a   notice   for
      acquisition of land including that of the appellant for public purpose
      namely, for the development and utilization of the land as residential
      and commercial purposes. The notification was issued under  Section  4
      of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’)  and  the  Land
      Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana was authorized
      to issue public notice on the substance of notification at  convenient
      places in the locality. He was also authorized to survey upon the land
      and take necessary action regarding the same. The  appellant  filed  a
      detailed objection under Section 5A of the Act  categorically  stating
      that the appellant has raised an A Class construction on the concerned
      area in the year 1999-2000 and therefore, inclusion of  the  land  for
      the purpose of acquisition is not  justified.  In  the  meanwhile,  on
      10.03.2008, the said land was released by the Authority in  favour  of
      Ritwiz Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. However, on  15.09.2008,  the
      Land Acquisition Collector  considered  the  objection  filed  by  the
      appellant under Section 5A of the Act and as per his report,  exempted
      the land of the appellant from acquisition since there was  already  a
      residential building on the land on the date of the  notification.
In
      spite of the report produced by the Land  Acquisition  Collector,  the
      Haryana Urban Development Authority vide notification dated 06.02.2009
      made a declaration that the appellant’s land is to be acquired for the
      development of residential and commercial Sector Nos. 76,77 and 78 for
      which the notification was initially issued on 07.02.2008.


      4.    It  is  the  case  of  the  appellant  that  while  issuing  the
      notification under Section 6 of the   Act, the property  adjoining  to
      the land of the appellant, which belongs to one  M/s.  Harpreet  Food,
      was released. Though the respondent Authority has released  a  portion
      of the appellant’s property, some part of the built-up and constructed
      portion of the house was not released.


      5.    The appellant therefore, filed a writ petition before  the  High
      Court of Punjab and Haryana registered as Writ Petition  No.  7746  of 2009,
      challenging the acquisition of his land by  the  Authority.  The  said
      petition got tagged  along  with  other  similar  petitions  filed  by
      different affected parties and the Writ Petition  No.  7711  of  2009,
      titled New Vidya Niketan Educational Society Vs. State  of  Haryana  &
      Ors. was made the lead case.


      6.    The High Court, after hearing both the parties concluded that in
      all the writ petitions, construction was  raised  in  an  unauthorized
      manner without getting any permission either under the  provisions  of
      the  Punjab  Scheduled  Roads  and  Controlled  Areas  Restriction  of
      Unregulated Development Act, 1963  or  under  the  relevant  Municipal
      laws. 
Even then in some cases, relief was granted  by  releasing  some
      portion of the land under construction  and  ordering  acquisition  of
      vacant land. 
The action taken by  the  Authority  was  held  perfectly
      justified. 
The Review  Application  No.  388  of  2011  filed  by  the
      appellant against dismissal of his C.W.P. No. 7746 of  2009  was  also
      dismissed on 16.12.2011.  Hence, these appeals.


      7.    The learned senior counsel  Mr.  Pallav  Sisodia,  appearing  on
      behalf  of  the  appellant  argued  that  the  High  Court  failed  to
      appreciate that there was a construction already made by the appellant
      for  residential  purpose.  Therefore,  as  per  the  policy  of   the
      Government of Haryana, the constructed portion including the amenities
      and other built up areas are required to be released from the  process
      of acquisition. It is the further case of the appellant that the  High
      Court erred in not appreciating the fact  that  the  Land  Acquisition
      Collector in his report has mentioned that the land of  the  appellant
      may not be acquired since it has a  well–laiden  beautiful  residence.
      The State Government, as per the learned senior counsel, illegally and
      in an unauthorized manner, has acquired the land. It is also the  case
      of the appellant that in a different case having  similar  facts,  the
      High Court has passed an Order releasing the lands over which built up
      houses were situated. The learned  senior  counsel  of  the  appellant
      further argues that the Government has adopted the ‘pick  and  choose’
      methodology  for  acquiring  land  thereby  exempting  the  commercial
      establishments  from  acquisition  and  discriminating   against   the
      appellant.


      8.    The  learned  Additional  Advocate  General  Mr.  Manjit  Singh,
      appearing on behalf of the State  contended  that  the  appellant  had
      illegally raised construction on this land without permission  of  the
      concerned authority. Hence, the appellant cannot  now  seek  exemption
      from  acquisition  on  the  ground  that  there   is   a   residential
      construction on the land and therefore, the land cannot be acquired.


      9.    We are inclined to observe that the  High  Court  has  erred  in
      dismissing the writ petition of the appellant as the same is  contrary
      to the principle laid down by this Court in the following cases :-


           In Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of  West  Bengal[1],  it  has
      been held as under:-
             “14. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA
             Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-
             A is the only protection available to a person whose lands  are
             sought to be acquired. It is a minimal  safeguard  afforded  to
             him by law to protect himself  from  arbitrary  acquisition  by
             pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia,  that  the
             important ingredient, namely, "public purpose" is absent in the
             proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala  fide.  The  LA
             Act being an expropriatory  legislation,  its  provisions  will
             have to be strictly construed.


             15. Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is  necessary  to
             enable the Collector to deal effectively  with  the  objections
             raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report.  The
             report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an
             empty formality because it is required to be placed before  the
             appropriate   Government   together   with   the    Collector's
             recommendations and the record of the case.  It  is  only  upon
             receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final
             decision on the  objections.  It  is  pertinent  to  note  that
             declaration under Section 6 has  to  be  made  only  after  the
             appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the
             report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2).  As
             said by this Court in  Hindustan  Petroleum  Corpn.  Ltd.,  the
             appropriate Government while issuing declaration under  Section
             6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only  to  the
             objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also
             to the report which is submitted by the Collector  upon  making
             such further inquiry thereon as he thinks  necessary  and  also
             the recommendations made by him in that behalf.


             16. Sub-section (3)  of  Section  6  of  the  LA  Act  makes  a
             declaration under Section 6 conclusive evidence that  the  land
             is needed for a public purpose. Formation  of  opinion  by  the
             appropriate Government as regards the public  purpose  must  be
             preceded by application of mind  as  regards  consideration  of
             relevant factors and  rejection  of  irrelevant  ones.  It  is,
             therefore, that the hearing contemplated under Section 5-A  and
             the report  made  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  his
             recommendations assume  importance.  It  is  implicit  in  this
             provision that before making declaration under Section 6 of the
             LA Act, the State Government must have the benefit of a  report
             containing recommendations of  the  Collector  submitted  under
             Section 5A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations must  indicate
             objective application of mind.”
                                 (Emphasis laid by this Court)

            In the case of Usha Stud and Agricultural  Farms  Pvt.  Ltd.  v.
      State of Haryana[2], it was held as under:
             “30…..Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate  Government
             is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the
             Collector under Section 5-A(2) that particular land  is  needed
             for the specified public purpose then a declaration  should  be
             made. This necessarily implies that  the  State  Government  is
             required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and  take
             final decision on the objections filed by  the  landowners  and
             other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can
             be made under Section 6(1).”
                           (Emphasis laid by this Court)


            Further, in the case of Women’s  Education  Trust  and  Anr.  v.
      State of Haryana & Ors.[3], this Court has held as under:-

             “20. What is most surprising is that the  High  Court  did  not
             even deal with the issue relating to application of mind by the
             Government to the report  submitted  by  the  Land  Acquisition
             Collector under Section 5A(2) along with  his  recommendations.
             The documents produced before the High Court and this Court  do
             not show that the State Government had objectively applied mind
             to the recommendations made by the Land  Acquisition  Collector
             and felt satisfied that the land in  question  deserves  to  be
             acquired for the purpose specified in the  notification  issued
             under Section 4(1).  The  record  also  does  not  contain  any
             indication as to why the State Government did not  consider  it
             proper to accept the recommendations of  the  Land  Acquisition
             Collector. Therefore, there is no escape  from  the  conclusion
             that the impugned acquisition is  ultra  vires  the  provisions
             contained in Section 6 of the Act.”
                            (Emphasis laid by this Court)


            Also, in an earlier case in Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. v.  State
      of Bihar & Ors.[4], this Court observed that compliance of Section  5A
      of the Act is a sine qua non for acquisition of land. This Court  held
      that:
             “10.…..The decision of the Collector is supposedly final unless
             the appropriate Government chooses  to  interfere  therein  and
             cause affectation, suo motu or on the application of any person
             interested in the land. These requirements  obviously  lead  to
             the  positive  conclusion  that  the  proceeding   before   the
             Collector is a blend of  public  and  individual  enquiry.  The
             person interested, or known to be interested, in the land is to
             be served  personally  of  the  notification,  giving  him  the
             opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and  awakening  him
             to such right. That the objection  is  to  be  in  writing,  is
             indicative of the fact that the enquiry into the  objection  is
             to focus his individual cause as well as public cause…..”


      10.   In the light of the foregoing cases,  it  is  evident  that  the
      government  has  to  consider  the  report  of  the  Land  Acquisition
      Collector while  making  declaration  of  acquisition  of  land  under
      Section 6 of the Act. Further,  if  the  government  is  coming  to  a
      conclusion which is contrary to the report, then the government has to
      provide  appropriate  reason  for  the  same.  The  report   of   Land
      Acquisition Collector is extracted hereunder:-


      “REPORT U/S 5-A OF SECTOR 76, 77, 78 FARIDABAD-U/S 4 DATED 7.2.2008


|S. |Name of |Name  |Khasra |Total     |Type of|Whether  |Objec|Reco-mmen|
|No.|Place   |of the|No.    |constructe|Const-r|constru-c|tion |dation   |
|of |and     |Object|total  |d area    |uction |tion     |of   |of L.A.O.|
|Obj|Sector  |or    |land   |          |       |before or|the  |         |
|.  |        |      |       |          |       |after u/s|Petit|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |4        |ioner|         |
|1  |2       |3     |4      |5         |6      |7        |8    |9        |
|4  |Farid-pu|      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|   |r       |      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|   |76,77,  |      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|   |78      |      |       |          |       |         |     |         |
|5  |-do-    |Vinod |18/13/3|1200      |A-Class|Prior    |The  |A well   |
|   |        |son of|(4-10) |Sq.yds.   |       |         |appli|laiden   |
|   |        |Birbal|8/2/3  |Residentia|       |         |cant |beautiful|
|   |        |      |(1-16)/|l Kothi   |       |         |has  |residence|
|   |        |      |6-6    |swimming  |       |         |reque|. Hence, |
|   |        |      |       |Pool      |       |         |sted |may not  |
|   |        |      |       |Boundary  |       |         |to   |be       |
|   |        |      |       |Wall      |       |         |get  |acquired.|
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |his  |         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |house|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |relea|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |sed  |         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |from |         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |acqui|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |sitio|         |
|   |        |      |       |          |       |         |n    |         |



                                                    Sd/-L.A.C.
                                                    15.09.2008”

11.   Hence, the declaration made by the Government for acquisition of  land
of the appellant under Section 6 of the Act does not provide any reason  for
arriving at a decision contrary to that of the report produced by  the  Land
Acquisition  Collector.  Therefore,  the  basic  protection  to  which   the
landowners are entitled to under the Act through  Section  5A  is  violated.
Consequently, the process of acquisition of the land  of  the  appellant  is
tainted with mala-fide and therefore, the same is liable to  be  set  aside.
Accordingly, the impugned acquisition notifications under Sections 4  and  6
of the Act in relation to the appellant’s land and the action taken  thereon
are hereby quashed. The impugned judgment and orders of the High  Court  are
set aside.  The appeals are allowed. No costs.
                       ………………………………………………………………………J.
                                    [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]



                                        ………………………………………………………………………J.
                                     [V. GOPALA GOWDA]
 New Delhi,
 January 28, 2014
  ITEM NO.1A                COURT NO.11          SECTION IVB
(For Judgment)


              S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14383-14384/2012


  VINOD KUMAR                                  Petitioner(s)
                      VERSUS
  STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                      Respondent(s)


  Date: 28/01/2014  These matters were called on for Judgment today.


  For Petitioner(s)
                            Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.
                            Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.
                            Mr. Param Mishra, Adv.
                            Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.
  For Respondent(s)
                            Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv.
                            Mr. Rajan K.Chourasia ,Adv.
                            Ms. Anubha Agrawal ,Adv.



           Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced the  judgment  of
  the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice  Sudhansu  Jyoti  Mukhopadhya
  and His Lordship.
            Delay condoned.
            Leave granted.
            The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs  in  terms  of
   the signed non-reportable judgment.


            Photocopy of the Original Record, if any, submitted  during  the
   hearing of the matter by the learned counsel for the respondent-State  be
   returned to the learned counsel for the respondent-State.






             [ Neeta ]                         [S.S.R. Krishna]
           Sr. P.A.                           Court Master
        (Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

-----------------------
[1]     (2012) 2 SCC 25
[2]     (2013) 4 SCC 210
[3]     (2013) 8 SCC 99
[4]     (1993) 4 SCC 255

                           -----------------------
                                   - 15 -


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.