Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 553 (ALL)

NARAYAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2004-03-12

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI

body2004
JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 5th November, 2001 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), the impugned notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 30.1.1989 and 16.1.1995 (Annexures-1 and 7), and for quashing the award dated 5th November, 2001. It was also prayed that the Respondent be directed to release the land in dispute from acquisition and to withdraw all acquisition proceedings against the Petitioner in pursuance of the notification dated 30th January, 1989 u/s 4 of the Act and the notification u/s 6 dated 16th January, 1995. Thus, in effect by means of the present petition the Petitioner has challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the award ultimately passed on 5th November, 2001, in pursuance thereto and the consequential notice dated 5th November, 2001, issued to the Petitioner to collect the amount of compensation awarded to him. 3. It has been stated in para 3A of the petition that notification dated 30th January, 1989 (Annexure-3 to the petition) was published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 for making constructions under a planned development scheme in district Agra. Thereafter a notification dated 8th February, 1990 (Annexure-4 to the petition) was issued u/s 6 on 8.2.1990. However, this Court vide judgment dated 20th August, 1993 (Annexure-5 to the petition) quashed the notification u/s 6 of the Act. 4. It is stated in para 6 to the petition that an award dated 29th February, 1992 (Annexure-6 to the petition) was passed and subsequently several petitions were filed challenging the same. A fresh notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 16th January, 1995 (Annexure-7 to the petition). The aforesaid notification was also challenged in several petitions. Another set of petitions demanding compensation in terms of the award was also filed before this Court. All these petitions were dismissed on 5.1.2000 by a common judgment Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra and others, (2000) 2 AWC 1065 . The aforesaid notification was also challenged in several petitions. Another set of petitions demanding compensation in terms of the award was also filed before this Court. All these petitions were dismissed on 5.1.2000 by a common judgment Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra and others, (2000) 2 AWC 1065 . Subsequently, the A.D.A. went to the Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid judgment and the Supreme Court held that where land is acquired for an authority that authority must be given a hearing by the S.L.A.O. vide (2001) 2 SCC 646 , (Annexure-C.A.1 to the counter-affidavit). The Supreme Court clarified that the acquisition proceedings are not being set aside, and the S.L.A.O. is merely being directed to refix the compensation. In compliance of the Supreme Court direction the impugned award dated 5th November, 2001 was passed. 5. In paragraph 15 of the petition it has been stated that since the earlier notification dated 8th February, 1990 u/s 6 of the Act was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22nd August, 1993 (Annexure-6 to the petition) and a fresh notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 16th January, 1995, the award should have been passed within a period of two years from 16th January, 1995. It has been further submitted that the award dated 5th November, 2001, which has been made in continuation of the earlier award dated 29th February, 1992, loses its importance insofar as the Petitioner is concerned as he was not a party before the High Court or the Supreme Court. In paragraph 16 of the petition it has been stated that the Petitioner is still in possession over the plot in dispute. 6. As regards the question of delay in making the award, this plea has no merit in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra and others, . 7. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that three sets of petitions were heard and decided together and all petitions were dismissed on 5th January, 2000. The leading case was of the A.D.A. itself challenging the award dated 29th February, 1992. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra and others, . 7. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that three sets of petitions were heard and decided together and all petitions were dismissed on 5th January, 2000. The leading case was of the A.D.A. itself challenging the award dated 29th February, 1992. Thus, the validity of the award dated 29th February, 1992, was upheld and the validity of notification under Sections 6 and 17(1) dated 16th January, 1995, was upheld by this Court by its judgment dated 5.1.2000 vide Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra and others, . The answering Respondent filed SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of this Court dated 5th January, 2000. The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal remanded back the matter to the S.L.A.O. only for fixation of the amount after giving opportunity of hearing to the answering Respondent and also to the land owners on the basis of the material placed before him within six months. In pursuance of this direction the award dated 5th November, 2001, was passed. 8. It is not disputed that the Petitioner had participated throughout the acquisition proceedings and had filed objections before the S.L.A.O. In the earlier award dated 29th February, 1992, his name appears at serial number 64 whereas in the present award dated 5th November, 2001 also his name appear at serial number 64. Hence in our opinion it is not open for him to challenge the award dated 5th November, 2001, or the land acquisition proceedings involved in the present case in which he had already participated. It is also pertinent to note that the Supreme Court had clarified in its judgment that the matter is being remanded only for fixation of the amount and as such the validity of the notification dated 16th January, 1995, was also upheld. As such the present petition challenging the award and notice dated 5th November, 2001 and land acquisition proceedings, which have already concluded after full participation of the Petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 9. It has been clearly stated in various paragraphs including paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit that if the Petitioner had raised construction without sanction of layout plan any such construction is wholly unauthorised and illegal and is liable to be demolished. 9. It has been clearly stated in various paragraphs including paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit that if the Petitioner had raised construction without sanction of layout plan any such construction is wholly unauthorised and illegal and is liable to be demolished. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit it has also been specifically stated that it is also false to contend that the Petitioner was not a party in the earlier litigation. In paragraphs 3, 9, 11 and 15 of the counter-affidavit it has also been specifically stated that in fact in Writ Petition No. 31481 of 1992 A.D.A. v. S.L.A.O. and Ors. filed by the answering Respondent challenging the award dated 29th February, 1992 all the land owners including the Petitioner were impleaded as Respondent. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit it has also been specifically stated that the Petitioner is not in possession and certificate of possession dated 7th July, 1990, is Annexure-C.A.-3 to the counter-affidavit. 10. In our opinion, this petition has no merit. In A.D.A. v. S.L.A.O. (2001) 2 SCC 646 (Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit) the Supreme Court had specifically clarified that the acquisition proceedings are not being set aside and the S.L.A.O. is merely being directed to refix the compensation. Hence it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, and the land acquisition proceedings in pursuant thereto. Thus, the petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lac to be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 4 for indulging in frivolous litigation, and for not coming to this Court with clean hands. The Petitioner is seeking a second round of litigation when the first round has been concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court.