Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3817 (ALL)

SHEKHAR HOTELS v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-28

ARUN TANDON, SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2016
JUDMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Manish Goyal, Advocate assisted by Shri Raghuvansh Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the writ petitioner, Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents and Shri B.Dayal, counsel for respondent No. 4 Bulandshahar, Khurja Development Authority, through its Secretary). 2. This writ petition has been filed for declaring that the proceedings of acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1894) vide notification dated 15.6.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 7(1) and 7(4) of the Act, 1894 followed by notification dated 19.10.2006 under Section 6 read with Section 7(1) of the Act, 1894 as having elapsed in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the same Act on the ground that such Award has been made beyond the prescribed period as mentioned under the said Section 11-A. 3. Facts in short relevant for our purposes are as follows :— 4. It is admitted on record that the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 were published on 15.6.2006 and on 19.6.2006. These notifications were subjected to challenge by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65687 of 2006 (M/s. Shekhar Hotels Gulmohar Enclave and another v. State of U.P. and three others). The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. 5. Not being satisfied the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition No. 3193 of 2007 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court granted an interim order on 26.2.2007 which continued in operation till 12.5.2008. The Award has been made only 17.12.2011. According to the petitioner even if the period during which an interim order was operating as per the directions of the Apex Court is excluded then too the Award would be beyond the prescribed period of two years as contemplated by Section 11-A of the Act, therefore, the proceedings would lapse. 6. Shri B.Dayal counsel for the respondent No. 4 however points out that at the relevant time when the Award was made in the year 2011 the legal position was settled under the judgment and order of the Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and others, 1993 (22) ALR 500, i.e. if urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act, 1894 had been invoked, then provision of Section 11-A would not be attracted. 7. 7. It is only under the said legal situation as was prevailing on the date that the Award has been made beyond the period of two years to be precise in the year 2011. It is further pointed out that now the legal position has crystalized i.e. even in matters where powers under Section 17 of the Act, 1894 had been invoked, award has to be made in conformity with Section 11-A of the Act (Reference Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar and others, 2015 (10) SCC 241 ). However, during all this period after the possession was taken by the State Government and ultimately transferred to the Development authority on 9.6.2008 large scale development has taken place. Reference is made to paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Development Authority). 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the records of the present writ petition we do find that there has been delay in making of the Award as per Section 11-A of the Act, 1894, in the facts of the case, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi (Supra). But at the same time we are also conscious of the fact that during all this period possession had been taken and the Award was made as per the law as stated in the case of Satyendra Prasad Jain (Supra). We are also conscious of the fact that after the possession was taken in the year 2008 large scale of development has taken place which fact is hardly disputed before us. We have been informed that as against the total acquisition of 41.884 hectares compensation for an area under the Karar Niyamawali as per Award under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1894 has been made. Less than 5% of the tenure holders have not accepted the Award and that other have however filed a Reference Application under the same Act. 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that equity between the petitioner and the persons to whom allotment has been made (allottees of respondent No. 4) must be balanced. Less than 5% of the tenure holders have not accepted the Award and that other have however filed a Reference Application under the same Act. 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that equity between the petitioner and the persons to whom allotment has been made (allottees of respondent No. 4) must be balanced. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to modify the relief which has been prayed for by providing that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of 64.7% excess compensation + 10% of the developed land as has been Awarded by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(11) ADJ 01, which has since been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC. Paragraph 48 and 49 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below : “48. To sum up, the following benefits are accorded to the landowners : 48.1. Increasing the compensation by 64.7%; 48.2. Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners; 48.3. 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.” 10. For all the aforesaid reasons and with the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is allowed.