Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 10 (ALL)

DHARAM PAL SINGH TYAGI v. STATE OF U P

2009-01-05

ABHINAVA UPADHYA, PRADEEP KANT

body2009
PRADEEP KANT AND ABHINAVA UPADHYA, JJ. These are two writ petitions challenging the notification dated 12. 1. 1984, issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and also the declaration made under section 6 (1) of the Act. The land in question was acquired for public purpose and the provisions of section 5-A of the Act were dispensed with as the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Act were made appli cable. 2. It is not in dispute that notices under section 9 (1) of the Act were issued to the petitioners and according to the Raebareli Development Authority, the possession of the land was also taken on 14. 5. 1984. The award was pronounced on 23. 9. 1986. 3. The petitioners have raised a dispute regarding actual delivery of pos session and they say that the constructions raised by them are still on the spot, which have been demolished by the respondents after the interim order passed by this Court and in support thereof, they have placed reliance upon the min utes of meeting said to have been held between the Raebareli Development Authority, certain other officers and the petitioners on 10. 5. 1990, wherein it was observed that because of the fact that there is a stay order of the High Court and the possession of the land has not been made available, therefore, the scheme could not be implemented fully. 4. The question, as to whether the petitioners are in actual possession of the land or not, in view of the fact that the possession of the land is said to have been taken after issuance of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act as far back as in 1984, would hardly be relevant for adjudicating upon the issue whether possession of the land was actually taken or the same was taken after issuance of notices under section 9 (1) of the Act, symbolically, on issuing a cer tificate to that effect. 5. The State had issued the notifications under section 4 (1) read with sec tion 17 (4) of the Act saying that the land is required for public purpose, namely, for the housing scheme behind the Feroz Gandhi Vidyalaya, Raebareli for the residents of Raebareli. 5. The State had issued the notifications under section 4 (1) read with sec tion 17 (4) of the Act saying that the land is required for public purpose, namely, for the housing scheme behind the Feroz Gandhi Vidyalaya, Raebareli for the residents of Raebareli. The State had the authority to issue such notifications and the purpose shown therein cannot be said to be the pur pose other than public purpose. The declaration under section 6 (1) of the Act was issued within time and possession was also taken. 6. The main thrust of the petitioners Counsel is that once the Raebareli Development Authority, in its meeting dated 10. 5. 1990, had resolved that the land of the petitioners be released, after taking some portion of the land for the purpose of construction of road, with the understanding that on complying with the aforesaid resolution, the petitioners would withdraw the writ petitions, the respondents are not at liberty, not to release the land of the petitioners as resolved in that meeting. 7. The meeting dated 10. 5. 1990 was held in pursuance of some decision taken by the Raebareli Development Authority. The Raebareli Development Authority constituted a committee to negotiate with the petitioner Dharam pal Singh Tyagi and in this meeting, the observations as aforesaid have been made. This committee consisted of Sri Mohan lal Tripathi, Adhyaksha, Nagar Palika, Raebareli, Sri R. N. Upadhyay, Secretary, Raebareli Development Authority and Sri K. M. Singh, Assistant Planner, Raebareli as well as Sri Dharam Pal Singh and Sri M. P. Singh. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents, in response, submitted that the Raebareli Development Authority had no jurisdiction or authority to hold such a meeting by constituting any committee, as the land was acquired by the State Government and, therefore, if any land was to be released under law, that could be done only by the State Government and not by the Raebareli Development Authority. Further submission is that even if in this meeting of the committee, which consisted of Dharam Pal Singh Tyagi and M. P. Singh also, any decision was taken, the same cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus by this Court and unless of course the State Government itself was a party to the meet ing, no mandamus can be issued. 9. 9. The acquisition of land for public purpose is done in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The State Government is the au thority competent to issue such notifications and if necessary, apply section 17 (4) of the Act by virtue of which the right of filing of objection by the land owner can be dispensed with. In case the State Government is of the view that there is no such urgency, the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act can be is sued inviting objections within a period of thirty days, as has been provided under section 5-A of the Act. The scheme of the Act provides the manner in which the land can be acquired, how and when the possession can be taken and the period during which the award should be pronounced and published. 10. In the instant case, there appears to be no challenge to the authority of the State in issuing notifications under section 4 (1) read with section 17 (4) and section 6 declaration but for the ground which has been raised by filing a re joinder affidavit that though in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the land was acquired for construction of the houses for weaker section but it has been made for staff of the Feroz Gandhi Vidyalaya and, therefore, this change of scheme of planned development hits the very purpose of the notifications issued under the Act. 11. We have perused the notification issued under section 4 (1) and the dec laration under section 6 of the Act. The notification says that the land was ac quired for public purpose, namely, for construction of houses for the people of Raebareli over the land falling behind Feroz Gandhi Vidyalaya. That being the purpose, it cannot be said that any deviation has been done by the State Government or the Raebareli Development Authority in carrying on the scheme, which was pronounced or mentioned in the aforesaid notifications. Even otherwise, if the land is acquired for public purpose, may be by giving a named public purpose, the State Government is at liberty to change the purpose but the only requirement is that the changed purpose should also be a public purpose or a planned development. We thus do not find any illegality in the proceedings of acquisition. 12. Even otherwise, if the land is acquired for public purpose, may be by giving a named public purpose, the State Government is at liberty to change the purpose but the only requirement is that the changed purpose should also be a public purpose or a planned development. We thus do not find any illegality in the proceedings of acquisition. 12. The Raebareli Development Authority, if it was of the view that the land in question was not required, could have given this information to the State Government and if the State Government was convinced and the posses sion of the land had not been taken by that time, it could have passed any order for release of the land as desired, but if the possession of the land has already been taken, this right does not remain with the State Government also in terms of section 48 of the Act. 13. We thus do not find any merit in these writ petitions, which are hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. 14. Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners lastly prayed that a direction be issued for payment of compensation, as awarded to the peti tioners, to which Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi and Sri D. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents have no objection. We, therefore, while departing, do direct that whatever amount of compensation to which the petitioners have been held to be entitled under the award, if has not been paid to them, shall be paid without any delay, say within a maximum period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Petitions Dismissed. .