Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 661 (ALL)

SUKHVEER v. STATE OF U P

2004-03-24

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI

body2004
M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the notification dated 25-2-1994 and 10-11-1995 as having lapsed by virtue of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the petitioners, possession over the land in dispute. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners claimed to be recorded as tenure holders of the khasra plots as stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition and they claimed to be in actual physical possession. On the request of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25-2-1994 vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. A perusal of this notification shows that the land was being acquired for the planned industrial development in District Ghaziabad through NOIDA and there was urgency and Section 17 of the Act was invoked. 4. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the notification was never pasted at any conspicuous place in the locality nor announced by beat of drums. Thereafter notification under Section 6 was issued on 10. 11. 1995 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 5. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is alleged that the notification under Section 4 was last alleged to be published on 31. 10 1994. Hence there can be no valid publication under Section 6 after 31. 10. 1995. Hence it is alleged that the publication of the notification under Section 6 either on 3-7- 1997 or on 4-7- 1997 was invalid. 6. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition it is alleged that the proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act since no award was made within two years of the publication of declaration under Section 6. It is alleged that the land never vested in the State as possession was not taken over within the said period of two years. It is alleged in paragraph 21 that the very fact that no steps were taken to take possession shows that there was no urgency in the matter. For the first time on 12-11-2001 the Collector, Gautambudh Nagar offered 80% of the estimated compensation under Section 17 (3-A ). It is alleged in paragraph 21 that the very fact that no steps were taken to take possession shows that there was no urgency in the matter. For the first time on 12-11-2001 the Collector, Gautambudh Nagar offered 80% of the estimated compensation under Section 17 (3-A ). True copy of the notice dated 12-11-2001 is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is alleged that from the above notice dated 12-11- 2001 it is clear that the respondents had not taken possession of the land in dispute till 12-11-2001. It is alleged in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that after issuing notice dated 12-11- 2001 the officers and employees of the NOIDA visited the site on 2-1- 2002 and threatened to dispossess the petitioners and demolish their constructions. In paragraph 27 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners made enquiries and came to know that the respondents are alleged to have obtained possession of the acquired land vide possession memo dated 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999 vide Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 28 of the writ petition that these documents are manipulated. In paragraph 29 of the writ petition it is alleged that there was no publication of the declaration issued under Section 6 made on 4-7-1997. The said declaration was not published in the newspaper nor pasted on the notice Board at any convenient place at the locality nor proclaimed by beat of drums. It is alleged that the possession memos dated 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999 are merely orders of the A. D. M. (Land Acquisition), District Gautambudh Nagar directing the subordinate staff to take possession of the acquired land. However, it is alleged that there is no document to show that the possession was actually taken over and handed over to NOIDA. In paragraph 38 it is alleged that neither any award under Section 11 was made nor any valid vesting in the State under Section 16 took place. Hence the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. In paragraph 45 of the writ petition it is alleged that the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 10-11-1995 and, therefore, the period of two years for making the award or taking possession expired much before the alleged possession memo dated 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999. Hence the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. In paragraph 45 of the writ petition it is alleged that the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 10-11-1995 and, therefore, the period of two years for making the award or taking possession expired much before the alleged possession memo dated 28-6-1999 and 29-6-1999. It is alleged in paragraph 49 of the writ petition that no compensation was offered or tendered to the petitioners under Section 17 (3-A ). 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by NOIDA and we have perused the same. In paragraph 4 of the same it is stated that the notification under Section 4/17 dated 28-1-1994 was published in the Gazette on 25-2-1994, and the notification under Section 6/17 was issued on 10-11-1995. The possession of the land was taken by the NOIDA on 28-6-1999 and at present this is part of Sector 43 of NOIDA which is a fully developed area. True copy of the notification and possession letters are Annexures C. A. 1, C A. 2 and C. A. 3 to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 5 it is stated that the possession has been legally taken over by the respondents. In paragraph 8 it is stated that the entire land acquisition was carried out in accordance with the Act. In paragraph 10 it is stated that the declaration was made in the local newspapers as well as the mode prescribed under the Act. In paragraph 21 it is stated that as soon as the acquisition proceeding was completed NOIDA was given physical possession of the land in dispute. It is alleged that during the entire acquisition proceeding no legal objection was raised regarding the land in dispute. NOIDA has deposited 80% compensation with the concerned authority. The possession was taken over on 28-6- 1999 and it is borne out from the possession letter. Once possession of the land has been taken over it has vested free from all encumbrances. The land was urgently required for the planned industrial development of NOIDA. 8. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 3 of the same it is alleged that the newspapers, dainik Atha, dainik Bharat Atma, dainik Bechain Bharat and dainik Navin Vishwamanav in which the notification was published are no newspapers at all. They do not have wide circulation. 8. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 3 of the same it is alleged that the newspapers, dainik Atha, dainik Bharat Atma, dainik Bechain Bharat and dainik Navin Vishwamanav in which the notification was published are no newspapers at all. They do not have wide circulation. Hence the publication in these newspapers is no information to the public at all. It is denied that the substance of the notification was published in the locality either by beat of drums or by pasting it on the notice board. The document showing the local publication has been manufactured for the purpose of this notification. Notification under Section 6 was also not published in wider circulated newspapers. The possession of the land was not legally taken either on 28-6-1999 or on 29-6-1999. In paragraph 4 it is stated that the petitioners are still in the possession of the land in dispute and the land has not vested in NOIDA. Till now the award has not been made and hence proceedings have lapsed under Section 11-A. The notification under Section 4 was last published on 31-10-1994 whereas the notification under Section 6 was published on 10-11-1995 i. e. after one year of the notification under Section 4. Hence it is invalid. 9. On the facts of the case we find no merit in this petition. In Kaloo Ram v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27317 of 2001, decided on 5-3-2004 [since reported in 2004 (1) JCLR 864 (All)] the points which have been pressed in this petition have all been considered in great detail and have been rejected. The entire case law on all the points is mentioned in Kaloo Rams case (supra ). The affect of U. P. Act No. 8 of 1974 amending the Land Acquisition Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court has also been considered therein. Hence in view of the judgment in Kaloo Rams case (supra) this petition is dismissed. Interim order if any is vacated. Petition dismissed. .