Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 647 (ALL)

Arvind v. State of U. P.

2017-02-28

DILIP GUPTA, SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by 6 petitioners for enhancement of compensation already paid to them for acquisition of their lands in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on 30 November 2016 in Civil Appeal No.11501 of 2016 (M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). 2. It is stated that a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 18941 was issued on 16 October 2004 for acquiring large tract of land measuring 67.179 hectares including the land belonging to the petitioners for construction of residential colonies by Ghaziabad Development Authority. The petitioners received payment on 8 October 2007 under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 19972. 3. Certain other land owners had assailed the acquisition proceedings by filing writ petitions in the High Court which were dismissed. The Supreme Court in M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. considered whether invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was valid or not. The Supreme Court found that urgency clause was wrongly invoked and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act could not have been issued without holding an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The Supreme Court then examined what relief should be granted to the appellants. The Supreme Court found from the materials placed on record that the purpose for which the land was acquired had been implemented in parts of land as constructions under different housing schemes had come up. Therefore, taking into consideration the factual position, the Supreme Court moulded the relief in the following manner : - "Though this Court is interfering with the acquisition proceedings as a whole, yet it directs that there will be no obligation on the part of the acquiring Authority to return any part of the land to any of the landowners. In other words, the acquiring Authority would have the option to retain entire of the land acquired by the notifications in question. In such an event, only in respect of the land of the appellants before this Court (stated to be 76 in number and the area involved 281 acres approximately) the date of the present order will be deemed to be the date of a fresh notification for acquisition of the aforesaid land of the appellant before this Court. In such an event, only in respect of the land of the appellants before this Court (stated to be 76 in number and the area involved 281 acres approximately) the date of the present order will be deemed to be the date of a fresh notification for acquisition of the aforesaid land of the appellant before this Court. We repeat to make it clear that for the rest of the land acquired and in respect of the landowners who may have received any part of the compensation, the aforesaid directions would have no application. The compensation to be determined on the basis of the deemed notification, as directed, will be in accordance with the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and claims for compensation for construction that may have come up on the acquired land prior to the dates of original Notifications (16th October, 2004 and 11th November, 2004) will also be considered by the Collector on their merits." (emphasis supplied) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the land of the petitioners was acquired by the same notification which was in issue before Supreme Court, the petitioners would be entitled to the same relief in view of the agreement entered into between the parties. The petitioners have placed reliance on clause 4 of the Agreement which provides that if in future, there is any enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired under the same notification by the competent authority, the tenure holders who have executed the agreement would get the same benefit. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Ghaziabad Development Authority submit that the petitioners would not be entitled to any enhancement of compensation in view of the specific direction issued by the Supreme Court that the relief would be restricted to the appellants who were 76 in number and for rest of the landowners who may have received the compensation, the aforesaid directions would have no application. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is clear that the Supreme Court moulded the relief only in favour of the appellants before the Supreme Court as it found that even though the exclusion of the enquiry made under Section 5-A of the Act was bad in law but as constructions had been made on the land of the 76 appellants, they would be entitled to certain reliefs. The petitioners claim enhancement of the amount of compensation only on the basis of the agreement. The Competent Authority had not enhanced the compensation and the petitioners were not appellants before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. clearly observed that only appellants before the Supreme Court, who were 76 in number, would be granted benefit and for the rest of the land acquired, the directions would have no application even if they may have received any compensation. The direction issued by the Supreme Court in M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. would, therefore, not be applicable to the present case. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be permitted to seek enhancement of the compensation in terms of clause-4 of the agreement. 7. The petitioners are, in such circumstances, not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.