“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   2020      OF 2011 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 17755 OF 2007)

Brij Pal Bhargava & Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Land  owners  –  appellants  have  challenged  the  judgment  of  

Allahabad High Court, challenging the dismissal of their petition, whereby  

they had challenged the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the  

Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter  called “the Act”  for  short).   The  

lands comprised in Plot Nos. 542, 543 and 544 of Village Jainsinghpura  

Bangar, Mathura, U.P., measuring 6.6 acres were sought to be acquired  

by  notification  dated  20.3.1991  issued  under  Section  4  of  the  Act.  

Ultimately, after the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, the notification  

under  Section  6  of  the Act  came to  be issued on 28.2.1992.   It  is  an  

1

admitted  position  that  in  pursuance  thereof,  the  award  has  also  been  

passed.

3. Shri U.U. Lalit, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellants  urged before us that  the High Court  has not  considered the  

major  defects  in  the  whole  proceedings  under  the  Act  and  more  

particularly,  under  Section  5A of  the  Act.   The  learned  senior  counsel  

vehemently argued that in pursuance of the notice inviting objections under  

Section  5A  of  the  Act  issued  by  Collector,  Mathura,  published  in  the  

newspaper  “Amar  Ujala”  dated  21.3.1991,  the  appellants  filed  their  

objections  under  Section  5A  of  the  Act  on  18.4.1991  ventilating  their  

grievances.  The appellants had also sought for an opportunity of personal  

hearing and accordingly, Shri Brij Pal Bhargava had appeared before the  

Land  Acquisition  Officer  on  3.5.1991;  however,  on  that  date,  he  was  

informed by the Land Acquisition Officer that no reply was filed by the Land  

Acquisition Department to the objections filed by the appellants.  It  was  

also informed that the officers were busy in election duty and, therefore, no  

hearing was possible on that date and the next date of hearing would be  

communicated  to  the  appellants  in  due  course.   The  learned  senior  

counsel  pointed  out  that  thereafter,  no  date  was  ever  informed  to  the  

appellants  and  ultimately,  no  hearing  was  given  and  instead  the  

Government  came  out  with  the  publication  of  the  notification  dated  

2

28.2.1992  under  Section  6  of  the  Act.   The  learned  senior  counsel  

asserted that in the absence of any hearing under Section 5A of the Act,  

the whole proceedings under the Act were rendered illegal.  The learned  

senior counsel also relied on the affidavit of the lawyer of appellants in land  

acquisition proceedings asserting that no hearing opportunity was given to  

him.

4. This contention was very strongly refuted by Shri  Dinesh Dwivedi  

and Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

State of U.P. and Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (respondent  

No. 3) respectively.  The original report was produced before us.  Both the  

learned senior counsel urged that on that day i.e. 3.5.1991, a further date  

was  given and the parties were  heard and it  is  only thereafter  that  an  

investigation report was prepared under Section 5A (2) of the Act.  We  

have been taken through the said report wherein the objection on the part  

of the said Brij Pal Bhargava was the non-publication of the public notices  

under Section 4 of the Act.  That contention was specifically refuted by  

pointing out that there was proper publication of the notices under Section  

4 of the Act.  The other objection raised was that the whole acquisition was  

done with  mala fide  intentions.   It  was  suggested  in  the objection that  

about 150 acres of land for housing development was already acquired  

about 20 years back and yet no development had been made.  It was also  

3

urged that the acquisition of the land for the planned housing development  

is not covered under the public purpose.  It is apparent from the report that  

all these objections were dealt with holding that there was no question of  

any mala fides in the acquisition.  It has also been held that the acquisition  

for the public purpose of planned housing development is very much a  

public  purpose.   The  said  acquisition  has  been justified  on  account  of  

increase in the population and fast industrial development which required  

the availability of the houses for the persons of middle income group and  

lower  income group,  and  of  Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  and  

backward  class.   The other objection raised was that  the land was not  

suited for the public purpose since there was 16 year old village Abadi of  

about one and a half acre and there were number of trees on two and half  

acre land.  That question has also been dealt with in details holding that  

the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority would develop Public Park,  

School and Play Ground on the acquired land.  Even the objections raised  

by one Devendra Nath Bhargava have been considered in details by the  

Land Acquisition Officer.  We are quite convinced that all  this could not  

have been possible unless the appellants were heard and their objections  

were  considered  in  details.   Shri  U.U.  Lalit,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellants urged that this Court had invited the original  

report and the original report did not show the factum of hearing.  We have  

seen the original report and the order sheet.  Indeed, there are dates given  

4

after the first date, on which date some of the objectors were also present.  

There are some missing pages.  However, it is specifically mentioned in  

the report that the objectors have been heard.  In our opinion, once the  

original report suggests that the objectors were heard, there is no point in  

urging that the appellants were not heard.   

5. Shri  Vikas  Singh,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  

Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority  (respondent  No. 3) relied on  

the decision in Jayabheri Properties Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of   

Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [2010 (5) SCC 590].  The observations made in  

para 42, where this Court had specifically held that the contention raised  

on behalf of the appellants about hearing not afforded to the objectors was  

refuted on the ground that the objections filed were duly considered by the  

Special Dy. Collector and rejected by his order dated 21.7.2006.  Since we  

have seen the original report in this case, we are of the opinion that not  

only was the hearing afforded, but all the objections have been specifically  

considered.  The counter affidavit shows a document where the objectors  

have been invited for the hearing on a fixed date i.e. 17.9.1991.  We are of  

the  clear  opinion  that  not  only  the  objectors  were  heard,  but  their  

objections  were  also decided.   This  contention  raised on behalf  of  the  

appellants is rejected.   

5

6. As regards the affidavit  of  the lawyer  appearing  on behalf  of  the  

appellants  in  land  acquisition  proceedings,  we  have  gone  through  the  

affidavit.  It is, however, completely, bereft of the dates and other details.  

We, therefore, do not find it fit to rely upon the same.

7. The second contention raised by Shri Lalit, learned senior counsel is  

that  though the acquisition proceedings are over and the award is also  

passed,  the possession has not  been taken at  all.   The learned senior  

counsel pointed out, relying on the decision in Balwant Narayan Bhagde  

Vs. M.D. Bhagwan & Ors. etc. etc. [1976 (1) SCC 700] that as per the  

majority  view  expressed  by  Bhagwati  &  Gupta,  JJ.,  it  is  the  physical  

possession which should be taken in pursuance of the land acquisition and  

not only symbolical possession or paper possession.  The learned senior  

counsel also relied on the report to suggest that inspite of the acquisition,  

still  the Revenue entries were in favour  of  the appellants showing their  

possession and the cultivation by them in respect of the land.  Shri Lalit  

tried to show some photographs suggesting therein that the wicket gate  

had the lock of the appellants and thus contended that the possession still  

continues with the appellants.  In fact, it is a question of fact as to whether  

the possession has been taken or not.  However, the respondents have  

produced  the  possession  receipt,  where  it  is  suggested  that  the  

possession was taken by the officers after going on the spot.  Shri Vikas  

6

Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mathura Vrindavan  

Development  Authority  (respondent  No.  3)  pointed out  that  it  would  be  

impossible for the Collector or Revenue officers to enter each bigha of land  

for taking possession thereof and, therefore, the pragmatic approach has  

to be adopted by the Court while considering as to whether possession  

has been taken or not.  The learned senior counsel also pointed out that  

the documents show that actual possession was taken.  He also tried to  

point out the photograph suggesting that not only the possession has been  

taken, but number of other activities of construction were going on at the  

land including drawing the layout thereof and building the roads therefor.  

The learned senior counsel relied on the reported decision in  Sita Ram  

Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of   

NCT,  Delhi  &  Ors.  [2009  (10)  SCC  501],  as  also  in  Dahyabhai  

Ranchhoddas Dhobi & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2010 (7) SCC  

705], where the view has been taken about the pragmatic approach to be  

adopted by the Courts in deciding as to whether the possession was taken  

or  not.   Seeing  the  report  and  the  orders  passed,  we  are  thoroughly  

convinced that not only the possession was taken, but there are activities  

going on at the behest of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority.  

This is apart from the fact that this is a pure question of fact which has  

been answered by the High Court in no uncertain terms.  In this view of the  

matter, we are of the clear opinion that even on this count, the appellants  

7

must fail.

8. We are completely satisfied with the judgment of the High Court and  

the findings therein.  We confirm the same.  No other question was raised.  

In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without any costs.

………………………………..J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

………………………………..J. (Anil R. Dave)

New Delhi; February 23, 2011.

8

Digital Proforma

1.       Case No. : Civil Appeal No.______of 2011 [Arising  out  of  SLP  (c)  17755  of  2007]

2. Cause title : Brij Pal Bhargava & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

3. Judgment heard by : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave

4. Judgment reserved by : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

5. Date of C.A.V. : 17.2.2011

6. Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 23.2.2011

7. Nature of judgment : Reportable

9