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

Saturday, July 2, 2016

the division bench was in error in distinguishing the present case from the judgment in Gajraj (supra).= As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), in spite of the finding that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, the relief of setting aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to the development that had already undertaken on substantial part of the land. However, to balance the equities higher compensation and allotment of land was ordered to meet the ends of justice.[10] = Full Bench judgment as upheld by this Court is not based on the extent of delay in individual cases. Consideration for not granting the relief of quashing the acquisition is overall development on substantial part of the acquired land as noted in para 50 of the Full Bench judgment already quoted hereinabove. Filing of prompt petitions by an individual is not the only consideration for grant of relief of quashing acquisition when almost entire land has already been developed. The Full Bench has quashed acquisition only where substantial part of the land had not been developed. The category of the judgment where acquisition has not been quashed covers the entire village where land of the respondents is located.=The respondents are, thus, entitled to be treated at par with other similarly placed persons. They are entitled to the following relief as per para 48.1 to 48.3 of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra): “ 48.1. Increasing the compensation by 64.7%; Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners; Compensation which is increased @64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the landowners to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter would be examined on the basis of the evidence produced to arrive at just and fair market value. ”As earlier noted in para 11 earlier, allotment of 10% of the acquired land to the concerned land owners is subject to maximum of 2500 sq. meters. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and direct disposal of the writ petitions of the respondents in terms of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra). There will be no order as to costs.

                                 REPORTABLE



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5372   OF 2016
                 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9550 of 2015


GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY                 …APPELLANT




                                   VERSUS


SAVITRI MOHAN & ORS.                             ...RESPONDENTS




                               J U D G M E N T


ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.


1.    Leave granted.  This appeal has been preferred  against  judgment  and
order dated 30th May, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad  in
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13109 of 2009 whereby  the  High  Court
allowed the writ petition and set aside the notification dated  12th  March,
2008 under Section 4(1) and Section 17(4)  of  the  Land  Acquisition   Act,
1894 (the Act) and the notification dated 3rd February, 2009  under  Section
6 read with  Section 17(1)  of the 1894 Act.


2.    The notified purpose for acquisition of land  is  ‘planned  industrial
development’ of Greater  Noida  Industrial  Development  Authority  (GNIDA).
Land of the respondents is in Village Chhapruala   and  is  part  of  larger
area of land acquired falling in many adjoining  villages.   The  Award  was
declared on 31st March, 2011.


3.    The original petitioners did not receive the compensation as they  had
already filed a petition in the High Court on 3rd March, 2009 mainly on  the
ground that the urgency clause could not have been invoked so as to  deprive
the land owners of their right to file objections.  On  coming  to  know  of
the proposed acquisition, the respondents  made  representation  dated  11th
April, 2008 stating that they  were  running  an  agro  based  industry  and
floriculture for producing hybrid  seeds  of  flowers.   Case  of  the  writ
petitioners was that possession was wrongly shown to have been taken on  9th
March, 2009 as interim order was already passed on 5th March, 2009.


4.    The writ petitioners relied upon decisions of this  Court  inter  alia
in Anand Singh versus State of U.P.[1], Dev Sharan versus State of  U.P.[2],
Radhey Shyam (dead) through Lrs. versus State  of  U.P.[3],  Devendra  Kumar
Tyagi & Ors. versus State of U.P.[4],  Devendra Singh &  Ors.  versus  State
of U.P. & Ors.[5], Greater Noida  Industrial  Development  Authority  versus
Devendra Kumar & Ors.[6], and Darshan Lal Nagpal versus  Government  of  NCT
of Delhi & Ors.[7]  in support of their case.


5.    The stand of the State is that having regard  to  immediate  need  for
development  and  likelihood  of  illegal  and  unauthorized  constructions,
invocation of urgency clause was  justified.   It  was  submitted  that  the
power  under  Article  226  should  not  be  exercised  so  as  to  obstruct
development of infrastructure  which  will  serve  larger  public  interest.
Instead, the relief could be moulded so to compensate the writ  petitioners.
 It was submitted that the land was part and  parcel  of  larger  area.   In
view of substantial development having taken place, the  plea  of  the  writ
petitioners should not be considered in isolation.  Reliance was  placed  on
a Full Bench Judgment of the High Court in Gajraj and  others  versus  State
of U.P. and others.[8]  whereby 461  petitions  were  decided.   Acquisition
was  upheld  but  additional  compensation                                of
64.70 per cent was awarded with further direction to allot  developed  plots
to the extent of 10 per cent of the acquired  land  subject  to  maximum  of
2500 square meters as against allotment of abadi plots to the  extent  of  6
per  cent.    This  order  was  passed  having  regard  to  the  extent   of
development, which had already taken place after the acquisition.  The  said
judgment also covered land of village Chhapraula as a part  of  group  No.18
(out of  65  groups).   While  discussing  the  writ  petitions  of  village
Chhapraula, the Full Bench judgment  noted  that  compensation  had  already
been disbursed to the extent of 76 per cent.


6.    The Division Bench of the High Court, following the decisions of  this
Court referred to  above,  held  that  power  of  dispensing  inquiry  under
Section 5A could be exercised in  exceptional  situations  and  not  without
real  urgency.   In  the  present  case,  invocation  of  urgency  was   not
justified.   The  judgment  of  the  Full  Bench  in  Gajraj  (supra)    was
distinguished on the ground that therein the writ petition  was  filed  with
delay of two years  and  in  some  cases  where  there  was  no  delay,  the
acquisition had been quashed.


7.    GNIDA has challenged the view of the High Court mainly on  the  ground
that the Division Bench has taken a view contrary to the view taken  by  the
Full Bench which by now stands  affirmed  by  this  Court  in  Savitri  Devi
versus State of Uttar Pradesh[9].  Subject to  the  moulding  of  relief  as
above, the Full  Bench  had  upheld  the  acquisition  relating  to  village
Chhapraula covered by the very same notification as  in  the  present  case.
It was  submitted  that  large  scale  development  work  had  already  been
executed on the acquired  land.   82  per  cent  land  owners  had  accepted
compensation which covered 76 per cent of the land in  terms  of  the  area,
the  GNIDA  had  constructed  roads,  laid  down   sewer   lines,   electric
transmission lines, developed green belts, provided drinking water  facility
and other infrastructure.  In these  circumstances,  the  impugned  judgment
could not be sustained.  Learned counsel for the  respondents  supports  the
impugned judgment.


8.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties at  length  and  perused
the record including the lay out plan showing Sectors 13 and  16  (Ind.)  in
Greater Noida (West).


9.    Only question for consideration is whether the matter  is  covered  by
the judgment of this Court in  Savitri  Devi  (supra),  as  claimed  by  the
appellant in which case the  respondents  will  be  entitled  to  relief  of
higher  compensation  and  allotment  of  land  instead   of   quashing   of
acquisition proceedings.


10.   Our attention has been drawn to the relevant part of the   full  Bench
judgment of the High Court in Gajraj (supra)  as follows :


“50. The writ petitions of Group-18 relate to village  Chhapraula.  In  Writ
Petition No.46775 of 2011 (Jai Pal And Others v. State of U.P.  and  others)
pleadings are complete which is treated as leading writ petition of  village
Chhapraula.  This  writ  petition  has  been  filed  by  48  tenure  holders
challenging  the  notification  dated  12th   March,   2008   issued   under
Section 4 read   with   Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of   the   Act    proposing
acquisition of 68.129 hectares land of village Chhapraula.  The  declaration
under Section 6 of the Act was issued  on  3rd  February,  2009.  The  State
Government by Government order dated 8th September, 1997 and  9th  February,
2005 has issued specific directions to the acquiring bodies not  to  include
the land covered by abadi in the  acquisition  and  in  case  it  is  utmost
necessary for acquisition displaced person be  given  comparable  land.  The
petitioners claim to be in actual  possession  of  the  land.  It  has  been
pleaded that  it  has  become  fashionable  to  discriminatingly  apply  the
provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act in every  case  of  acquisition.  The
land  has  been  allotted  to  private  builders  whereas  the  purpose   of
acquisition was planned industrial development.  In  the  counter  affidavit
filed by the State it has been stated that possession of the land was  taken
on 9th March, 2009 and award was declared on 21st  March,  2011.  Copies  of
the possession memo and award have been brought on the record. According  to
paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, the land use of part of  Sector  Tech
Zone was changed from institutional to residential and  similarly  land  use
of part of Sector Echotech-13 was changed from industrial  to  institutional
which changes were approved by the Board on 11th  February,  2010  and  also
the  same  were  approved  by  the  Government  on  30th  March,  2010.  The
compensation has been disbursed to the extent of  76%.  An  application  for
intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Marion Biotech Private  Limited
which claim allotment of land by allotment letter dated 31st March, 2011  of
an area of 10,000 square meters as an industrial plot  in  Echotech-16.  The
applicant claims that 200-300 persons shall be employed in the project.”


11.   Operative part of the order is as follows :


“21. ….. In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as follows:


1. The Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011, Writ  Petition  No.  47545  of  2011
relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition No. 47522  of  2011  relating  to
village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011, Writ Petition  No.  45208
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45211 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45213  of  2011,
Writ Petition No. 45216 of 2011, Writ  Petition  No.  45223  of  2011,  Writ
Petition No. 45224 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45226 of 2011,  Writ  Petition
No. 45229 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45230 of 2011, Writ Petition No.  45235
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2011, Writ Petition No.  45283  of  2011
relating to village Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of  2011,  Writ  Petition
No. 46785 of 2011 relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407  of
2011 relating to village Chaura Sadatpur and  Writ  Petition  No.  46470  of
2011 relating to village Alaverdipur which have been filed  with  inordinate
delay and laches are dismissed.


2(i). The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village  Devla)  being  Writ  Petition
No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131 of 2009, Writ Petition No.  22800
of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812  of  2009,
Writ Petition No. 50417 of 2009, Writ  Petition  No.  54424  of  2009,  Writ
Petition No. 54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009,  Writ  Petition
No. 57032 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 58318 of 2009, Writ Petition No.  22798
of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787  of  2010,
Writ Petition No. 31124 of 2011, Writ  Petition  No.  31125  of  2011,  Writ
Petition No. 32234 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32987 of 2011,  Writ  Petition
No. 35648 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No.  41339
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47427 of 2011 and  Writ  Petition  No.  47412  of
2011 are allowed and the notifications dated  26.5.2009  and  22.6.2009  and
all consequential actions are quashed. The  Petitioners  shall  be  entitled
for restoration of their land subject to deposit of compensation which  they
had received under agreement/award before the authority/Collector.


2(ii). Writ petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer and  Ors.  v.  State  of  U.P.
(Group  38)  relating  to  village  Yusufpur  Chak   Sahberi   is   allowed.
Notifications dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007  and  all  consequential  actions
are quashed. The Petitioners shall be  entitled  for  restoration  of  their
land  subject  to  return   of   compensation   received   by   them   under
agreement/award to the Collector.


2(iii). Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee and Ors.  v.  State  of  U.P.
and Ors.) of  Group-42  relating  to  village  Asdullapur  is  allowed.  The
notification  dated  27.1.2010  and  4.2.2010  as  well  as  all  subsequent
proceedings are quashed. The Petitioners shall be  entitled  to  restoration
of their land.


3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at  (1)  and  (2)  are
disposed of with following directions:


(a)  The  Petitioners  shall  be  entitled   for   payment   of   additional
compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid  for  village
Patwari in  addition  to  the  compensation  received  by  them  under  1997
Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by  the  Authority  at  an  early
date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what  proportion
of  additional  compensation  be  asked  to  be  paid  by  allottees.  Those
Petitioners who have  not  yet  been  paid  compensation  may  be  paid  the
compensation as well  as  additional  compensation  as  ordered  above.  The
payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejudice to  rights
of land owners Under Section 18 of the Act, if any.


(b)   All   the   Petitioners   shall   be   entitled   for   allotment   of
developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject  to
maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open  to  the  Authority
in cases where allotment of abadi plot to  the  extent  of  6%  or  8%  have
already been made either to make allotment of the balance  of  the  area  or
may compensate the land owners  by  payment  of  the  amount  equivalent  to
balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed  residential
plots.


4. The Authority  may  also  take  a  decision  as  to  whether  benefit  of
additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10%  be
also given to;


(a)  those  land  holders  whose  earlier  writ  petition  challenging   the
notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and


(b) those land holders who have not come  to  the  Court,  relating  to  the
notifications which are  subject  matter  of  challenge  in  writ  petitions
mentioned at direction No. 3.


5. The Greater  NOIDA  and  its  allotees  are  directed  not  to  carry  on
development and not to implement the Master Plan 2021 till the  observations
and  directions  of  the  National  Capital  Regional  Planning  Board   are
incorporated in Master  Plan  2021  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  National
Capital Regional Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction  shall
not be applicable in those cases where the development is being  carried  on
in accordance with the earlier Master Plan of Greater  NOIDA  duly  approved
by the National Capital Regional Planning Board.


6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not  below
the  level  of  Principal  Secretary  (except  the  officers  of  Industrial
Development Department who have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct  a
thorough inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a)  in  proceeding  to
implement  Master  Plan  2021  without  approval  of  N.C.R.P.  Board,   (b)
decisions taken to change the land use, (c) allotment made to  the  builders
and (d) indiscriminate proposals for acquisition  of  land,  and  thereafter
the State Government shall taken appropriate action in the matter.”





12.   Perusal  of  the  above  shows  that  compensation  had  already  been
disbursed to the extent of 76 per cent.  Thereafter, for the entire land  of
village Chhapraula falling in Group No.18, the relief granted is payment  of
additional compensation and allotment of land.  As already noted,  the  part
of the order where relief of quashing of notification has been given is  not
of the category of the present case.  In these circumstances, we find  merit
in the contention raised on the behalf of the appellant  that  the  division
bench was in error in distinguishing the present case from the  judgment  in
Gajraj (supra).


13.   As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra),  in  spite  of  the
finding that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for,  the  relief  of
setting  aside  the  acquisition  was  not  granted  having  regard  to  the
development that had already undertaken on substantial  part  of  the  land.
However, to balance the equities higher compensation and allotment  of  land
was ordered to meet the ends of justice.[10]


14.   Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that  present
case calls for the relief of quashing the  acquisition  as  in  the  present
case, the writ petitioners have approached the Court without any delay.


15.   This argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that  Full  Bench
judgment as upheld by this Court is not based on  the  extent  of  delay  in
individual cases.  Consideration for not granting  the  relief  of  quashing
the acquisition is overall development on substantial part of  the  acquired
land as noted  in  para  50  of  the  Full  Bench  judgment  already  quoted
hereinabove.  Filing of prompt petitions by an individual is  not  the  only
consideration for grant  of  relief  of  quashing  acquisition  when  almost
entire land  has  already  been  developed.   The  Full  Bench  has  quashed
acquisition only where substantial part of the land had not been  developed.
 The category of the judgment where acquisition has not been quashed  covers
the entire village where land of the respondents is located.


16.   The respondents are, thus, entitled to be treated at  par  with  other
similarly placed persons.  They are entitled to the following relief as  per
para 48.1 to 48.3 of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra):


“ 48.1.     Increasing the compensation by 64.7%;


Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the  extent  of  10%  of  the
land acquired of each of the landowners;


Compensation which  is  increased  @64.7%  is  payable  immediately  without
taking away the rights of the landowners to claim higher compensation  under
the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter  would
be examined on the basis of the evidence produced  to  arrive  at  just  and
fair market value. ”





17.   As earlier noted in para 11 earlier, allotment of 10% of the  acquired
land to the concerned land owners is subject to maximum of 2500 sq. meters.


 18.  In view of the above, we allow this appeal,  set  aside  the  impugned
judgment and direct disposal of the writ petitions  of  the  respondents  in
terms of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra).  There will  be
no order as to costs.

                                                           …………………………………..J.
                                                            [ ANIL R. DAVE ]




                                                           …………………………………..J.
                                                       [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 29 , 2016.

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.9               SECTION XI
(For Judgment)

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

C.A. No. 5372/2016 @
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  9550/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  30/05/2012 in  CMWP
No. 13109/2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)

GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY                  Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

SAVITRI MOHAN & ORS                                Respondent(s)

Date : 29/06/2016 This petition was called on for pronouncement of  judgment
today.


For Petitioner(s)    Mr. Ravindra Kumar,Adv.

For Respondent(s)       Mr. Kumar Sivam, Adv.
                        Mr. Anuradha D. Mishra, Adv.
                        Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv.
                        Mr. D.V. Singh, Adv.
                     For M/s Anuradha & Associates, Advs.



      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment  of  the
Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and His Lordship.
      Delay condoned.
      Leave granted.
      The appeal is allowed in terms  of  the  signed  reportable  judgment.
There will be no order as to costs.



|(S. K. RAKHEJA)            |            |(SUMAN JAIN)                     |
|COURT MASTER               |            |COURT MASTER                     |


             (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)


-----------------------
[1]    (2010) 11 SCC 242
[2]    (2011) 4 SCC 769
[3]    (2011) 5 SCC 553
[4]    (2011) 9 SCC 164
[5]    (2011) 9 SCC 551
[6]    (2011) 12 SCC 375
[7]    (2012) 2 SCC 327
[8]    (2011) 11 ADJ (1)
[9]    (2015) 7 SCC 21
[10]   para 17 of the judgment

No comments:

Post a Comment

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